Talk:Constructed writing system

message: Artifical is a bad word to use here. It's prejudicial; to say that one thing is "natural" and another "artifical" is usually to give preference to the first. It's not really accurate; writing is something that distinguishes us from the animals, and hence all writing is artifical. Even in the sense that you give, most scripts are artifical. Cyrillic has a distinct point of origin by one person; so do many of the scripts of India. What's the gain of lumping Cherokee, Cyrillic and Cirth together, and contrasting them with Greek and Chinese? --Prosfilaes 05:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue could be described in the article.  What is the preferred term of writing systems scholars? Deh 14:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I would like to see an actual academic source using that term.  97.82.193.208 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

text: The term is quasi-defined at the top of the page (as a parenthesized implied synonym).  But if it bothers you, why not replace each use with 'constructed script'? Deh 14:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I will, but I wanted to wait a day or so in case somebody objected. Ben 19:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Under Tolkien: "While this is the most" and that's all.  Put into the article by "Paperflowergirl". AnonMoos 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence breaks off in the middle

message: The Tolkien scripts seem to be under indefinite consideration by Unicode, never advancing in the approval process (as far as can be determined from publicly-accessible info).  But there's a famous anecdote that Tolkien script files included with a 1970's-era plotting or typesetting software package (as a hackish joke) caused great bafflement among German users of the program... AnonMoos 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Under consideration by Unicode"

message: I guess John Malone who created Unifon isn't the same one as the Liberty Media guy? --213.47.109.179 12:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Malone - Unifon 

message: "Not much is known about the inventors of other scripts, though Cyrillic was (according to myth) created by St. Cyril." This seems to be at least partially nonsense; Cyril created the Glagolitic alphabet, but the Cyrillic was named for him by one of his disciples. See Cyrillic alphabet#History or early Cyrillic alphabet. -Octavo 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic 

message: Scripts don't 'naturally evolve'; they mutate through political forces; when outstanding users introduce new elements to an existing system. --Newepoch 15:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  evolution ?

message: I'm glad we have this article: like, ALL scripts are artifical. •Jim62sch•dissera! 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ==Duh

message: This article is worthless as others have pointed out. There are no references to actual peer reviewed journals or articles likely because this distinction between "natural" and "artificial" scripts is arbitrary.  Aside from the 3 or four inventions of writing, I doubt any commonly used scripts today were created by accident--rather by intention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.32 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point of this article? 

message: IPA "invented" or you mean "inveRted" letters ?
Someone needs to check this out and maybe correct it.
I mean IPA has a lot of inveRted=turned around/over letters, but it could contain "invented"=made-up ones too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.151.213 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA "invented" or you mean "inveRted" letters ?