Some Verdurian typos

[zompist]

You can actually do this with Unicode using combining diacritics

The capital letters are actually correct as is. I just thought the carons looked odd on tall lowercase letters.

Besides, a) I'm already using the Czech letters in most places, and b) I'd rather have letters where case changes work correctly.

[bradrn]

You can actually do this with Unicode using combining diacritics

The capital letters are actually correct as is.…

Not sure I understand… what do you mean by this? (I remember you making some other comments a while ago about uppercase D/T-caron; I didn’t understand those either.)

Besides, a) I'm already using the Czech letters in most places, and b) I'd rather have letters where case changes work correctly.

Why wouldn’t case changes work with combining diacritics? As I understand it, the Unicode case-change algorithm converts lowercase letters to uppercase and leaves combining diacritics alone, which should work fine.

[zompist]

The capital letters are actually correct as is.…

Not sure I understand… what do you mean by this? (I remember you making some other comments a while ago about uppercase D/T-caron; I didn’t understand those either.)

That the capitals are supposed to be Ď Ť. Which would not lowercase to d̂ t̂. (Also, wow, those look bad in the default font.)

(You can see how I wrote them here— cf. Ďarcaln and Leďear in the east, along the Serea. Yes, the accents change to look better with the ascenders, which is no odder than what the Czechs did.)

Also, thanks for pointing out the out-of-date APAF page. Should be fixed now!

[bradrn]

The capital letters are actually correct as is.…

Not sure I understand… what do you mean by this? (I remember you making some other comments a while ago about uppercase D/T-caron; I didn’t understand those either.)

That the capitals are supposed to be Ď Ť. Which would not lowercase to d̂ t̂. (Also, wow, those look bad in the default font.)

(You can see how I wrote them here— cf. Ďarcaln and Leďear in the east, along the Serea. Yes, the accents change to look better with the ascenders, which is no odder than what the Czechs did.)

So you wanted the capitals to use carons but the lowercases to use circumflexes? I just have one question: why‽

(And what font are you using? My computer displays the forum in Arial, which renders them fine… unless you’re talking about phpBB’s default choice of Trebuchet MS, in which case, yes, that was why I wanted to change the font.)

Also, thanks for pointing out the out-of-date APAF page. Should be fixed now!

Thanks for fixing it!

[zompist]

So you wanted the capitals to use carons but the lowercases to use circumflexes? I just have one question: why‽

Which I already answered: because it looks better. And though I could plead being a teenager at the time, as I noted, the Czechs felt the same, and modified the caron for printing.

[Ares Land]

I have it on my computer; I'll see how serviceable it is...

Weren't these available online at one point? I'm pretty sure I had downloaded the Cadhinor and Cuêzi grammars in Word format back in the day. That was, sadly, eighteen years and a few hard drives crashes ago...

(As I recall, both were very similar in style and format to the online Cuêzi grammar.)

[Kuchigakatai]

The capital letters are actually correct as is. I just thought the carons looked odd on tall lowercase letters.

I see. Not an answer I thought I'd get at all!

Weren't these available online at one point? I'm pretty sure I had downloaded the Cadhinor and Cuêzi grammars in Word format back in the day.

Huh! I think I remember downloading .doc grammars from zompist before, but that was indeed long ago.

[Yalensky]

Caught a discrepancy: the Sounds of Almea page reads "mnošuac" in the Xurnese example, and indeed that's what's said in the sound sample. The Almeopedia page for Xurnese has the same example sentence but with "mnošudac".

EDIT: a quick look at the Xurnese lexicon makes it seem that Almeopedia has the typo.

[Richard W]

But whether these look good or terrible/unreadable depends entirely on the font of the reader... In my Ubuntu Linux computer, in which Firefox grabs the DejaVu Sans font to render them, these look almost okay:

They don’t look great on Windows, but they work well enough. As usual, it depends on the font:

One can use Charis SIL as a web font. It's released under the SIL Open Font Licence.

[Raphael]

I have it on my computer; I'll see how serviceable it is...

Weren't these available online at one point? I'm pretty sure I had downloaded the Cadhinor and Cuêzi grammars in Word format back in the day. That was, sadly, eighteen years and a few hard drives crashes ago...

(As I recall, both were very similar in style and format to the online Cuêzi grammar.)

Are you sure that you downloaded them through the web? Perhaps you exchanged emails with zompist, and he was kind enough to mail you additional materials not available on the web (yet)?

[Ares Land]

Are you sure that you downloaded them through the web? Perhaps you exchanged emails with zompist, and he was kind enough to mail you additional materials not available on the web (yet)?

Oh, I just rememberd, the link used to be in the 'Learning materials' section: https://web.archive.org/web/20021205020 ... m#learning (you can't download them anymore of course)

[Yalensky]

On the new Almeopedia article for mills, I noticed that the technology navbox at the bottom of the page lists "Mills" twice.

[LingEarth]

I've been reading through the Arcél atlas--good stuff by the way--and found a couple of issues:

• This page looks like it's supposed to have some pictures of Uytainese logograms inline in the text.
• There's also a picture missing from Tlan ("Right: Tlan’s empire at his death")

Actually, there's a lot of pictures missing from Almeopedia; see Icëlani and Humans as well.

Also, in the Eralae atlas, links to the Almeopedia don't work when it's in "text to side" mode, and links with non-ascii characters don't work at all.

Also also, it would be nice if the titles of Almeopedia articles actually appeared in the title of the page, rather than it just being "Almeopedia".

[So Haleza Grise]

Pretty minor thing, but the link to Eastern on the main Verdurian page takes you to a 404.

[So Haleza Grise]

I notice in the Almeopedia: " Rather than write that a cer sat by the fire roasting a potopec after feeding abrenna to his tipel,"

Kio e potopec? Řo ředao dy tot e dasco verdury. The English "rabbit" is glossed in the dictionary as lapis.

Another small typo in the grammar. Under "irregularities" the future of žečir is listed as žedretru - I think it should be žedretu, without the second r. But what is žečir? I can't find it in the Verdurian dictionary at all, or in the Cadhinor lexicon.

[zompist]

I notice in the Almeopedia: " Rather than write that a cer sat by the fire roasting a potopec after feeding abrenna to his tipel,"

Kio e potopec? Řo ředao dy tot e dasco verdury. The English "rabbit" is glossed in the dictionary as lapis.

The words in that line are Caďinor, not Verdurian.

Another small typo in the grammar. Under "irregularities" the future of žečir is listed as žedretru - I think it should be žedretu, without the second r. But what is žečir? I can't find it in the Verdurian dictionary at all, or in the Cadhinor lexicon.

Now that's a poser. I thought it might be an obsolete word, but it's not in my earlier notes. Possibly I meant večir?

[So Haleza Grise]

Another small typo in the grammar. Under "irregularities" the future of žečir is listed as žedretru - I think it should be žedretu, without the second r. But what is žečir? I can't find it in the Verdurian dictionary at all, or in the Cadhinor lexicon.

Now that's a poser. I thought it might be an obsolete word, but it's not in my earlier notes. Possibly I meant večir?

I did some historical linguistics research* and found the answer to this. Looks like it's an out-of-date version of gečir. I'm wondering now if fežir - a word with similar sound and definition - was originally another variant of it.

*Used the Wayback Machine to find an older online version of the grammar.

Re potopec - that's an interesting "orphan!" No descendants, no ancestors that I can see!

[So Haleza Grise]

I'm excited about the new Verdurian script examples. I'm trying to read them all closely. It'll take me a long time, I really can't read them yet without the glosses.

Couple of typos I noticed in the examples:

Tu řo epe cunësan Ďekhamä. The English gloss for Ďeknamä is misspelled and I think this has carried over to the Verdurian - don't know how to make the lettering appear here but there should be a ne after ek, not a koď. Actually, come to think of it, the dictionary suggests that the word should be Ďeknama with a normal a - unless I have my declension wrong.

Tróumei so řuk apros pasreteu soa silva. I can't find a verb paser or pasir in the dictionary and I suspect this may be a pre-reform word. If I'm not mistaken the 'modern' verb is prezuir.

Apros Abend fäsrete soa Corona, fsëgda crežnai ne Curulen. I think this is the wrong tense and should be fäsree.

Ci-nižezom zure dy ēsele sazë. This has a wayward ē character that has also found its way into the Verdurian lettering.

Thanks for adding the lettering! They make the examples more 'fun' somehow.

[bradrn]

A broken link in the Wede꞉i grammar:

The Wede:i famiy has recently been shown to be related to Lenani-Littoral and Mei [link broken], the three families being grouped together as Southern.

[bradrn]

Another typo — the Kebreni article on Almeopedia has some text missing in the gloss:

Gensi eḣc gennisi. Kanu gymu oradam vekurte: bucuelecsu cynaute kumbehsu meclau. Ebaneu kanu bemaś miutte— gente ceuste, gymu kaunte euśte źaite ṫaza kanu. Bobabeu nuituste eśu ḣymu kunnar. Kanarei gemeḣ doḣtte eśu, kureḣ doḣtte eśu: neḣatte źaite miutte, nenkanyr kanarei zaurte eśu.

[this should start: ‘same-for-me and same-to-you. see us world seeming:’] irreducible experience's miscellaneous mixture. outsider see caricature with— this-NOM opposing, we seeing not-SUB things they see. drunkard thinking not-PRES drinks too-much. viewpoint first right-SUB not, second right-SUB not-PRES : man's thing having, objective viewpoint existing not.

It is the same way with each one of us. We see ourselves as a world— a jumbled mixture of irreducible experience. Outsiders see us in caricature— but may also see what we do not see: the drunkard never thinks he drinks too much. Neither point of view is the correct one; with human things, there is no objective viewpoint.