Talk:List of constructed scripts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why are African scripts not listed? (Not going to add them all.) — kwami (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

definition of "constructed script"?[edit]

Every script was constructed at some point. Is this category justified? Pete unseth (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most common scripts were not constructed, but have evolved over the centuries as they were used by their writing communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using ‘most’ in the sense of ‘most script users’. Depending on what is to be considered common, quite a number of common scripts are constructed rather than grown organically, including some big hitters like Cyrillic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Miller[edit]

Are Herman Miller's non-Ultima scripts really notable enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've gotten no reaction, I've done some sleuthing myself, by punching queries like this into a search engine:

+"[script name]" -site:prismnet.com/~hmiller -site:evertype.com/standards/csur -"Registry is a volunteer project" -"register_script_function" -site:liquisearch.com -"de libor sztemon" -site:revolvy.com -"E64F SEUSSIAN" -site:gegereka.com -"cr Range_Table" -site:theinfolist.com -"of constructed scripts is" -site:wikitrans.net -site:kreativekorp.com/ucsur -site:oocities.org/tokyo/pagoda/5961/lingvoj.HTM -site:www.arthaey.com/conlang/faq.html -site:google.com/forum/embed/#!topic/alt.language.artificial/ad2KealKzzQ -site:slideshare.net/agrao/esperanto-a-language-for-engineers -site:uea.ac.uk/~jrk/conlang.html

Sometimes I had to tweak the search terms slightly because the script name was a common term for example. After filtering out first-party pages, inclusive lists and so on, I found almost no third-party discussion of these scripts, none if you don't include anything from within his very small circle of conlangers. The closest pages I've found were:

https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0304D&L=CONLANG&F=&S=&P=108838
http://enamyn.free.fr/conlang/id11.html
http://archives.conlang.info/fha/cuefo/toenthualfoen.html
http://archives.conlang.info/qhae/paershei/parjheilqaun.html
http://archives.conlang.info/phu/taubhon/shanjeqaun.html
http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2009-m01/0101.html

But even those are meh and I cannot stress enough how difficult it was to find even these; I've searched for hours. So I guess I'll have to remove Herman Miller's non-Ultima scripts from the table. It's a hard decision, but I don't see how I could justify keeping them in. If you disagree, please provide some link to some serious discussion about the scripts from the broader community.

P.S. I'm not saying the search query above, or any search query alone, is a final test for script inclusion. For example, some scripts might only be published on paper, or in visual media, say. But, I think that in the case of Herman Miller's scripts the general approach is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qa-codes[edit]

I'm removing the Qa-codes. Since this is a bit of a radical change, I feel I need to explain my reasoning for a bit.

The codes seem to have no status whatsoever in either the conlang community or the broader internet community. I've found no evidence that these codes are used anywhere at all, nobody seems to link to the list and it isn't even acknowledged by either the CSUR or the UCSUR.

There's no indication that the author of the list consulted anyone in the broader community to come up with the list. There are severe problems with the list, like dubious decisions and bad prioritisation.

  • Was ISO 15924 with its limited set of private use codes such a good fit? What's the use case for these codes?
  • Why, given that the set of available codes is so limited, fill it up (almost) completely from the outset, rather than starting with a handful and expanding as demand develops?
  • Why were codes included for scripts which will never need a code, like Herman Miller's?
  • Why were scripts that exist only on the internet prioritised over ones which are actually published?
  • Why were some rare scripts given a code while some broader used ones weren't?
  • Why was no thought put into future expansion?

I imagine broader discussion beforehand would have improved matters.

As it is, it seems like just this one page on the internet, and not even a particularly good one at that. I really don't see what business it has being in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monofon[edit]

I might remove Monofon in the future. Most of the scripts here are either in active use, published in a novel / game or some such, or of broader interest for some other reason, but this just seems like someone's hobby project to me.

Even the author himself seems to have forgotten about it. The only page on the web that I could find was one in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20070524232135/http://members.fortunecity.com/rapidrytr/Spell/Pic-mf.htm

The thing is, I like some of the ideas, I'd hate to remove it, but you have to have some bar of entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DanceWriting[edit]

I've (for now) removed this entry: 

| DanceWriting || || 1972 || Valerie Sutton || part of the IMWA

I'm not sure if dance notation is a script in the same way as the rest of the list uses the term. If there's a consensus for including dance notation, then I think singling out DanceWriting weird; there are other dance notations which would have to be included as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kinya[edit]

I'm removing Kinya for pretty much the same reason I've removed Herman Miller's scripts.

The only reference I've found, by the author, I'll save here for posterity: https://web.archive.org/web/20011025195327/http://mgavioli.dadacasa.supereva.it/Kinya/kscr01.html?p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an archive of his old home page, including more information about his Kinya language: https://web.archive.org/web/19990429132525/http://www.iris.firenze.it/~mmg/index.htm (Not a lot of detail though.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ewellic[edit]

I'm removing it, again due to lack of third-party uptake. (The only thing I could find was a vanity print of Alice.) Even the author himself doesn't think it belongs on Wikipedia: http://ewellic.org/alphabet/q-and-a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, buddy. Looks like you took it upon yourself to decide which scripts are worthy and which aren’t. At least sign your work if you’re going to take on that kind of responsibility. Doug Ewell (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ihathvé Sabethired[edit]

I really really really don't want to remove this one, it's just so pretty. But... yeah, same issue as the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babelstone's removals[edit]

To keep track of things, I'll post them here:

Square word calligraphy: "The letters of English words are altered and arranged in a square so that they seem like a Chinese character" -- this is not a constructed script

(I'm inclined to agree.)

Monofon, Pikto, Streich, Syai, Traumae, Verdurian, Xaîni: as no Wikipedia article and no external reference, therefore no indication of notability

(Not all notable things will have an article and the absence of external references in the article doesn't mean they don't exist. I'll revisit them when I get to them. That said, I agree with the removal of Monofon and looking back on my own recent edits, it's likely I won't re-add the others. I just wish he'd been clearer about his edits, as it stands it seems the edits were done too quickly to do any due diligence and there was no comment on the talk page either.)

Seussian Latin Extensions: as they are not part of a constructed script but are imaginary letters with no actual use for writing anything

(I agree.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have long thought that this article is a horrible mess, with no clear criteria for inclusion, and your recent edits have encouraged me to try to help clear it up. You're welcome to add back any of Monofon, Pikto, Streich, Syai, Traumae, Verdurian, or Xaîni if you can provide a reference to a reliable 3rd-party source to demonstrate they are notable and not just someone's ephemeral hobby script. BabelStone (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, it seems we're in agreement then. As I already said, I do not expect to find much, and I think you were probably right to remove them.

As for criteria of inclusion... I think just someone's hobby probably shouldn't qualify. Thinking back, coming up with scripts is a surprisingly common hobby among school kids, fantasy fans, science fiction fans and linguists. If we had to include all hobby scripts, it would have thousands of entries, maybe millions, be utterly useless and incomplete and unrepresentative all at the same time. I think it should at least either have a sizeable community of users (even minority languages tend to have hundreds of speakers) or it should be used (as a script, not just random gibberish) in a work of literature, like a novel or a game. (In some cases, a script might be notable for different reasons though, like academic interest or being a precursor for a widely-used script.) And I think it should be a script, not just a cypher for English.

Well, that's roughly what I think anyway. I also think it's best to be sensible about it and not apply rules overly strictly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ophidian from Ultima VII[edit]

I'm removing this on the grounds that it's a cypher for English. See e.g. here: https://web.archive.org/web/19971008000739/http://www.origin.ea.com/english/ultima/ultima72/ophidian.html

Or this screenshot: wiki.ultimacodex.com/wiki/File:Opibook.jpg

The text reads, in English: temples of order / by shrithos / pilgrims, it is a great journey to visit the three temples of order. do not let the obstacles sway thee from thy destination, for though the path is difficult, the rewards are many.

Contrast this with Gargish from Ultima VI, which is a phonemic script for a made-up language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pikto[edit]

The only things I've found are that Williams self-printed an introduction and a dictionary, in very low numbers and of very poor quality. I cannot find any significant discussion on the internet; the only available reference to the glyphs themselves that I could find is: http://unifoundry.com/pikto/index.html It seems that it didn't spark much discussion even at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streich[edit]

I haven't even been able to find an image of the glyphs. The author has abandoned the project and the CSUR own file is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syai[edit]

Many of the glyph links on CSUR are broken. For a site which put itself in charge of maintaining a standard, its archival policies sure suck. But I've found a site (with glyphs): http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/sambas Not much else though. Author self-published two books, had a kind of world building thing going on, but not much third-party discussion. Too bad, he seemed like a cool guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traumae[edit]

Not a script, but a conlang written using Latin letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verdurian[edit]

Verdurian is a constructed language and script by Mark Rosenfelder, which he used as an example in his Language Construction Kit (which apparently is kind of a thing in conlang circles) and his internet world building project.

Apparently it has attracted some interest. It's mentioned on a number of websites, although as usual most of them are just lists.

Some snippets of text translated to Verdurian by third parties:

Here it's used in what seems like a kind of game called a conlang relay:

Some weird things:

Some more third party interest:

The whole thing has apparently attracted a number of fans, and here's their forum:

https://www.incatena.org

Although I'd say interest is not on the level of Tolkien's scripts, I wonder if removing it was a bit too hasty. On the other hand, it's quite a niche thing and maybe its notability is of a more distant degree. Tolkien's scripts lent flavour to a quite popular novel, whereas Verdurian exists as an example in a book about language construction and in this internet world building thing. It's subjective though. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is alphabetic sorting order that useful? How about sorting by category?[edit]

I don't think sorting the scripts alphabetically by name is very useful here. If someone is looking for a specific script, they'll punch the name in the search box; this page seems more geared to those with a broader interest and I cannot imagine alphabetic order having much utility to them.

At the same time, I notice that most of these scripts fall in some broad categories, like ‘script designed for natural language’ or ‘script designed for artistic work’.

I don't want to radically rearrange the entire article, that's too much work and hard to undo / change in the future. But how about if I make a click on the Comments column sort by category? (I'd change the caption of the column to ‘Comments (click to sort by category)’ to make this discoverable of course. And perhaps add some separator rows at the bottom of the table.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, I went ahead and just did it. I already like the order when the list is sorted by category way better than the alphabetical order, although there are still a few subjective things which may need to be revised. E.g. should the English orthographic reform projects be listed under natural or under misc? Should the Star Wars one be in the game or tvfilm category? That kind of thing. But as I said, I think it's already an improvement.

On a technical note, I've decided to use date as a secondary sort criterion, and if you want to just dump all the sort keys, enter this in the JavaScript console and paste the result in a text editor: 

copy(Array.from(document.getElementsByClassName("sortable")[0].rows).map(x=>((x.cells[4]||{attributes:[]}).attributes["data-sort-value"]||{value:""}).value).join("\r\n"))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xaîni[edit]

Apart from the usual inclusive lists, I've only found the website: http://www.morxa.force9.co.uk (And by the way, CSUR again has a broken image.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galay[edit]

Could one of the editors see whether Galay is suitable for inclusion?

This is a website that converts English/Hebrew into Galay characters: https://fraternitysanctumregnum.pythonanywhere.com/galay

It's featured on the Omniglot site: https://omniglot.com/conscripts/galay.htm

There is a book on Amazon that is written in the script: https://www.amazon.com/Emerald-Tablet-Hermes-Trismegistus-Reading-ebook/dp/B00OOA0L7Y/

It's most notable and unique feature (besides being pretty) is that it is both logographic and alphabetical.

Thank you. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love the way it looks. But I'm not sure it meets our notability standards.
I believe you're an editor on the FSR site; Omniglot has much laxer standards of inclusion, in fact it's sufficient to submit it to Simon Ager and if he likes it, it's in; and you are the author of the book. So these aren't really independent references.
Previously, editors have removed quite a lot of scripts that were basically just the hobby project of a single person or very small circle. All the ones that are still included have much broader appeal, for example, a community of users or they're used in a popular work of fiction.
Anyone can come up with a script. When I was young, kids in the village used to make up their own to write secret messages that adults or kids outside their circle of friends couldn't read. Or just for fun. If we were to include every script ever invented, this article / list would lose its utility.
That said, I think the idea behind your script is very cool. If it gains broader appeal and an article on Wikipedia, it should definitely be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sort[edit]

The article says: 

<!-- In the data-sort-values below, ￮ sorts after all other characters. -->

Since the switchover to Intl.Collator this is no longer true. It is currently used mainly as a separator for sort keys and it used to ensure that if A comes before B, A￮X always sorts before B￮Y. However, all the sort keys start with a digit to enforce the order and no two sort keys start with the same digit, so it still works even though it's technically broken... except for misc (miscellaneous) which starts with ￮ rather than a digit and now sorts differently than it did before.

Should we do anything about this? Should we replace ￮misc with Zmisc or something or do we accept the current sorting order? Should we delete or replace ￮ because it's technically broken, or should we leave it as is because it clutters diffs and doesn't change anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yi[edit]

I'm not including Yi for now, but in order to avoid forgetting it altogether, I'm leaving a note here.

The reasoning is that it may be impossible to be sure if the supposed creator, Aki, ever existed. If not, one might still wonder if the repurposing of the glyphs by the Chinese government created a new script. It may be a grey area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts that may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards[edit]

I think the Bété syllabary, although it has an article, doesn't meet our notability standards because it hasn't really been taken up by the Bété language community, as far as I can tell, but I felt I should leave a note here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Iban. And Kpelle (it even uses ‘failed script’ in its article). And Loma, although I might reconsider if the Unicode proposal is accepted. Nwagu Aneke seems like a one-man project, is it even notable enough to have an article? Ditto for Garay.

Although the self-styled Rohingya Language Academy heavily promotes Hanifi for political reasons, it seems in practice Latin script is used much more. If it gains more traction, we can always include it then. edit: To be clear, I don't mean to imply anything about the relative popularity of Arabic script vs Latin, but I cannot tell at a glance if I'm looking at Rohingya written in Arabic or actual Arabic, so yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaddare doesn't seem notable either (Somali uses Latin). I'm not trying to be negative on purpose or anything, but so many scripts on Wikipedia just seem like someone's inconsequential hobby project. Gadabuursi, also for Somali: article makes much of the body of literature written in it, but to me it seems like it was all just that sheikh's circle.

The evidence for the notability of Nyiakeng Puachue Hmong isn't particularly compelling, it seems mostly restricted to one church in the US, but even that evidence is coming to us from Michael Everson. He was one of the two people running the CSUR. His heart may be in the right place, but one look at that project shows that there are certain judgements he cannot be trusted with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Michael Everson; see also his Papers formally submitted to the Unicode Technical Committee and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 (Universal Character Set) which lists four Hmong script proposals. — CSUR has been dead for over a decade, but Rebecca Bettencourt continues the project as UCSUR. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the issues with CSUR date from when he was in charge. (Which you can plainly see in the Wayback Machine.) I have known about him since he was running it and I've bumped into his work every now and then in the years since. His heart is in the right place, but there are some judgements he cannot be trusted with, because of the kind of person he is. That same thing makes him valuable as a researcher, I suppose, but his word cannot be trusted to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our article (or rather sub-section) on Tolong Siki claims it's the local official script and that many books have been published in it. When I try to track down the significance of its officialness or what those books are though, I hit upon dead links and not much else, which makes me suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for Toto, has there been a status update since 2015? These projects tend to fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Wancho. I'm suddenly reminded of the fact that the SMP is almost full. Already. I remember when people thought 16 bits was going to be enough for anybody, ha ha. The available code space was supposed to be huge, how were we ever going to fill it? Unless the Unicode consortium is prepared to assume a much less credulous attitude going forward, they'll need to open up an 18th plane and so much for UTF-16. Or maybe they'll turn two planes into surrogate planes, so you can use surrogates to encode surrogates to encode codepoints in those trans-astral planes... I wouldn't put it past them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And has Zaghawa caught on? Articles always make claims about rising popularity and such, and this must be true in some cases, but I doubt it's true in all cases. It's often almost impossible to get reliable first-hand information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or Osage? Why do we have to have articles on all these experiments? What's wrong with waiting fifty years and just writing articles on the successful ones?

Sapalo seems like just another failed experiment to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adding Sora Sompeng until I see significant evidence of widespread actual use.

Jenticha may or may not qualify; there is a government newsletter, but I don't know its circulation, and little else. I can't imagine many people reading the newsletter: the typography nerd in me wants to hang, draw & quarter the font designer. We could perhaps wait until at least the Unicode proposal is accepted and then reevaluate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about Francis Lodwick's Universal Alphabet? I wouldn't mind seeing it on the list, but how much third-party interest has there ever been, really? What do you think? And what about the Standard Alphabet by Lepsius – does its influence on IPA maybe give it enough historical significance to include it? What about Unifon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toto is just a single village. I'm worried that the villagers might not actually have much practical use for script and that it therefore may fall out of use as soon as the big organisations that are currently promoting it lose interest.

I've looked for attestations of PCS in the wild using image search and cannot find any evidence of useful actual use. The problem seems to be that the message is either so self-evident that it's useless (like a picture of a slide near an actual slide - yeah, that's a big help) or it's incomprehensible without written descriptions. Even when the symbols themselves are understood, the reader / interpreter often cannot tell why those symbols were used without further textual clarification. Whatever the case may be, I doubt they're notable and I doubt they're an effective writing system.

Medefaidrin: only five people can write this script. Unless their forebears left behind a bulk of literature that somehow ends up attracting attention from the world at large, this doesn't seem to qualify for inclusion.

Albanian[edit]

According to Elsie there were seven original Albanian scripts (that we know of), among which Elbasan, Vithkuqi, Todhri and Vellara. I have kept the oldest one in this list because of its historical significance but I don't feel the others should be added until we can firmly establish their notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khojki[edit]

I'm not adding Khojki because the story about Pir Sadardin doesn't add up. He's credited both with originally orally transmitted teachings and supposedly the script in which they were written down two centuries later. It is of course possible they were written down earlier and that we've lost all evidence, but combined with the tradition of oral transmission, I just cannot help but disbelieve. Here's a thought: perhaps it's just an adopted, adapted and evolved Bramic script like there are so many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of constructed script[edit]

I think we should further clarify what exactly a constructed script is. For example, the modern Latin script could be labelled constructed because the invention of bicameral script with lower-case letters clearly goes back to Charlemagne's introduction of Carolingian minuscule (that's half of the graphemes), and that G as a letter that is distinct from C was invented by Spurius Carvilius Ruga, etc. (Anybody know who introduced the I-J and V-U distinctions that were unknown to the Ancients?) Many other scripts listed here weren't invented in the form they take today and with the same number of graphemes/characters as well, so where do we draw the line? Love --LiliCharlie (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin script underwent a series of slow evolutions and minor innovations to arrive in the form it has today. No one planned it overall, and several efforts at planned changes (such as the Claudian letters) have been unsuccessful, so it's hard to see how it can be considered a "constructed script". AnonMoos (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, and maybe not. To me it seems that Charlemagne's introduction of the whole set of lowercase letters was neither the result of slow evolution nor a minor innovation. I am a fluent German speaker, and in that language thousands of word pairs are distinguished by letter case alone. To give you a rough idea, here are a few example sentences with English translation: #1, #2, #3, #4. So from a German perspective a Latin alphabet without letter case would be a completely different script, one that renders orthography highly ambiguous and leads to wild guesses as to which words and sentence constructions are intended. Phoenician and Hebrew work the same, but unicameral and bicameral Latin are fundamentally different. I wonder if my view is Germanocentric, or is yours Anglocentric? -- I do not propose listing Latin here. What I do propose is to provide users with a definition that mentions fringe cases like Cyrillic and Gothic, as in Constructed script#Constructed scripts and traditional "natural" writing systems. Otherwise they'll have the impression that everything is proven fact and none of the items is disputed. Love --LiliCharlie (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charlemagne did not personally "invent" lower-case letters, because he was mostly illiterate. Instead, there was a gradual evolution in the medieval period toward what modern scholars call "miniscule" hands which were often easier to write, sometimes easier to read. However, the first letter of a paragraph was often larger and in a different script style (similar to the famous illuminated initials, but not necessarily illuminated). Eventually, this was formalized into a process of juxtaposing two different script styles, the ordinary "minuscule" for the main body of text, and a different and larger script style at the beginning of paragraphs and sentences and other cases when emphasis was felt to be needed, though it took a while for capitalization conventions to be established. The name of Alcuin of York is associated with the dissemination of some particular scribal practices, but he almost certainly did not personally invent most of them, but instead picked and chose what he liked best among what already existed.
As far as I know, the only alphabets in use today which distinguish upper and lower case are Latin, Greek (and its offshoot Coptic), Cyrillic, Armenian, and some forms (but not the currently most commonly-used form) of the Georgian alphabet. AnonMoos (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, several alphabets, while using the same or similar glyphs, still employ size differentiation between upper case and lower case. In some cases positioning rules are different for the lower case character than for the upper case character, e.g. whether ascenders & descenders define the limit of the core character box or poke out of it, which kind of comes close to the border of having distinct cases, but doesn't quite cross it, or where most of the characters are the same, but a few are different, like in Cyrillic. Constructed scripts such as Warang also sometimes have a distinct lower case, presumably because their inventor was brought up using Latin script and felt it was the thing to do. This is certainly the explanation for Deseret's cases.
There is also the interesting, but horrible, Japanese writing system, which has cases, but uses them for completely different purposes. It uses Chinese characters for most stems, hiragana for endings or particles and some native words and katakana for most loanwords and some native plants and such. This is the modern convention; even relatively recently books have been published that didn't use hiragana at all, and conversely purely hiragana-based writing also existed. Hiragana and katakana map one-to-one, but whereas hiragana were derived from calligraphic simplifications of complete Chinese characters, katakana were derived from parts of Chinese characters, often a single radical, resulting in a much more angular look.
Overall I have to agree with AnonMoos. The Latin script is the result of millennia of incremental tinkering of evolution with no clear point at which some person or organisation single-handedly effected some radical change, and that puts it in quite a different category from the scripts listed here.
I feel I need to mention at this point that this is a list, not an extended treatise on the subject of constructed scripts. I think we already have a constructed script article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Warang Citi is another script in use with letter case, and the Japanese syllabaries regularly exploit letter size to mark the number of syllables (e.g. きや ki-ya vs. きゃ kya), sometimes additionally indicating unusual/foreign onset-rime combinations (e.g. フア /hɯ.a/ [ɸɯ.a] fu-a vs. non-native ファ [ɸa] fa, cf. native ハ /ha/ [ha] ha). I don't consider Deseret, Glagolitic, Osage, Old Hungarian, etc. to be in use. — Why don't we mark script inventions like Cyrillic and Gothic that are often considered the result of "natural" evolution that was laid down and regularized by individuals whose name we know? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entries for Cyrillic & Gothic already say ‘based primarily on Greek’, but this is just a list so for the detailed history of a script one should consult the linked article. We cannot have several paragraphs for every entry, it would make the list useless and duplicate the work done (or that should be done) in the actual articles themselves.
I don't think these script are generally considered to have naturally evolved for their respective languages, nor that the scholarly consensus is that Cyril's and Methodius's disciples and Ulfilas only codified existing practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pahawh Hmong[edit]

I'd love to include Pahawh Hmong, but I'd like to see a bit more evidence of use first. I've tried to find some for myself, but I've found a book for teaching it and some minor event-related uses and that was about it. Not good enough, but maybe I just haven't been able to come up with the right combination of words to give to a search engine.

I think that if this script is widely used, there'll at least be some books published, a newspaper, a web forum or portal independent of the main promoters and maybe a few blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ciphers and such[edit]

I'm not adding the following scripts:

  • Ciphers for Latin: Alteran from Stargate, Goa'uld (hieroglyphs used as a ~), Unown, Madoka Runes, Ancient from Fire Emblem
  • Ciphers for kana: Old & Modern Hylian, Hunter × Hunter
  • Not a script: Gallifreyan, Newspeak, Seuss's ‘letters’

What to do with Hymnos, I'm not sure. Whether you consider it just a cipher or not would very much depend on whether you consider it to represent a constructed language, or just a game mechanic. I'm not adding it, but go ahead and make a case for it.

And the people who made that list somehow managed to miss that The Beast Player contains a Hangul-like script. It's like that list is made by fans of various works just wanting to see their baby represented, rather than people who are genuinely interested in scripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H.C.A. von Nettesheim's characters are just ciphers for Hebrew. And Enochian is a cipher for Latin as are litterae ignotae.

Gurmukhi[edit]

I don't know anything about the history of Gurmukhi, but if its article on Wikipedia is anything to go by, Angad only standardised existing scripts, so that would mean it doesn't belong on the list. In fact, it would make it exactly the kind of thing that LiliCharlie is talking about above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bedirxan[edit]

Bedirxan seems like a tweak of the Latin alphabet to me, where characters retain their familiar shapes and often even sounds. ‘But... IPA is on the list?’ I hear you ask. Well, IPA takes Latin and Latin-esque glyphs, greatly expanding the character repertoire and putting it to an entirely different kind of use. That makes IPA different, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same can be said about Benjamin Franklin's spelling system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sethian[edit]

One might ask why I'm choosing not to include Sethian, even though several game writing systems are included. For starters, it isn't a game, it's a kernel of an idea for a game at best. To turn it into a game would require a considerable amount of work, expanding the setting, redesigning the graphics, adding more player freedom, and so on. As it stands even the tiny price tag the author asks is unreasonable. In my opinion, it fails to reach a basic standard for notability for this reason alone.

Secondly, in order to progress, you have to enter fixed lines of symbols exactly as asked. Think up your own questions for the computer and you will either simply not progress or it will bug out preventing any further progress even if you subsequently do enter the line correctly. Only very few symbols are actually used, often in a very ad-hoc way, you pretty much have to consult the notebook or you'll miss too much. Besides, not consulting the notebook at key points can cause it to bug out as well. Only the tiny subset of symbols needed to tell a shadow of the very basic plot is used. Effectively they aren't coding a language at all, they're just a set of codes to be entered into an electronic lock. In any case, even if you do understand the idea behind it, it's never more than a mnemonic, you aren't really using the script in any meaningful way, not like in Heaven's Vault for example. Is it even a script then?

This doesn't come close to overcoming the notability hurdle; scripts have been rightly removed from this list that were more fleshed out and that saw more actual use than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

User:Amire80 has threatened to delete this article on Talk:Constructed script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Scripts[edit]

While the Elvish script and Klingon script are included, there are a few that are missing. Daedric and Dovahzul from The Elder Scrolls Matoran from Bionicle Gallifreyan from Doctor Who 2600:100E:B1DA:CAA8:65FE:51A6:123F:67EE (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would be another column[edit]

"By popularity" 

הראש (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_constructed_scripts&oldid=1195012138"