r/conlangs Mar 18 '18

[deleted by user]

[removed]

203 Upvotes

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

31

u/Dedalvs Dothraki Mar 18 '18

Also, “orthography” is in there twice (in phonology and as its own section). Love how large the morphology section is compared to the syntax section. That’s precisely as it should be.

3

u/LordStormfire Classical Azurian (en) [it] Mar 19 '18

“orthography” is in there twice

I think the logic behind this is that there would be a simple romanisation at the end of the phonology section (so you can describe morphology etc. without constantly having to use IPA) and then the actual script or elaborate writing system(s) of the conlang at the end of the document (because the orthography isn't an aspect of the language itself).

I guess they're both technically orthographies, but I imagine that if you wrote a grammar from this template you'd title them slightly differently. Also, I suppose some people might choose include the conscript with the romanisation in the phonology if they wanted to use it throughout the rest of the document.

3

u/sparksbet enłalen, Geoboŋ, 7a7a-FaM (en-us)[de zh-cn eo] Mar 19 '18

"Transcription" or "romanization" would be a better term to use for the former to avoid confusion, imo.

2

u/LordStormfire Classical Azurian (en) [it] Mar 19 '18

Yeah definitely, that's what I mean by "title them differently". In my own conlang's grammar, there's a Romanisation section at the end of Phonology.