Minimalistic Language / Twitter and text language

[Atrum Faustus]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this or not, but I thought I'd throw it up and see what happens.

Alright, so I just made a Twitter account in the last few days for a little project thing I'm doing. (I'll explain what it is if you want me to, but it's not important right now)

I was thinking about Twitter's 140 character limit, and got the idea of making a minimalistic language that would fit into that character limit rather well.

Now, I can barely get any work done on the other conlang projects I have (read: no work), so I was just wondering if anyone would be interested in working on this. Sorta like an exercise in condensing grammar and developing methods for compounding words. For a "functional" language, we could try streamlining English, or, what I think might be a little more interesting, we could start from scratch.

Anyway, that's about it. So: thoughts? Interest?  

[Song Wei]

I would love to help!

ever think about making letters match with numbers of the most commonly used words?

and not having the need for the word 'the' or 'a' would be good yes?

so it would look something like this


C7 G2 M2 R19 Q31

or something like that? I think this sounds great!  

[speria]

This sounds like a cool idea. As long as the words are short then it should be pretty easy to fit into the character limit.  

[Atrum Faustus]

Hey everyone, sorry for disappearing. I have a bad habit of doing that during Summer Break.

I like the idea of using numbers for common words.

Some of the ideas I've been having are:
-Sorta taking a page from the book of txt talk (which makes me feel dirty, but yeah...); I'm not sure how to really accurately describe it, so I'll just give a few examples

Demon becomes Dmon, eat becomes et (not sure about this one). Basically cutting out vowels that become redundant when you consider the "natural vowel sound" of some letters. I dunno. It's just a thought; maybe someone could take it and run with it?

The other idea is putting a limit on how small a given word could be compressed. Like, maybe no smaller than three letters? Of course, that wouldn't matter when the word is being given a number code.

And I just had another thought; using onomatopoeia more often. Eat could be "om", for example. (Like om nom nom, if that;s not obvious.

I'm sorry if this is all a little chaotic; this is just some really rough brain storming.  

[Song Wei]

Atrum Faustus

Hey everyone, sorry for disappearing. I have a bad habit of doing that during Summer Break.

I like the idea of using numbers for common words.

Some of the ideas I've been having are:
-Sorta taking a page from the book of txt talk (which makes me feel dirty, but yeah...); I'm not sure how to really accurately describe it, so I'll just give a few examples

Demon becomes Dmon, eat becomes et (not sure about this one). Basically cutting out vowels that become redundant when you consider the "natural vowel sound" of some letters. I dunno. It's just a thought; maybe someone could take it and run with it?

The other idea is putting a limit on how small a given word could be compressed. Like, maybe no smaller than three letters? Of course, that wouldn't matter when the word is being given a number code.

And I just had another thought; using onomatopoeia more often. Eat could be "om", for example. (Like om nom nom, if that;s not obvious.

I'm sorry if this is all a little chaotic; this is just some really rough brain storming.

That idea about the Onomatopoeia is actually pretty interesting! I think it would be helpful!  

[Czarevich]

I would use onomatopoeia with a mixture of abjadization (not a real word) and numerical representation. The French do this in their chat-speak, if I recall. I'd also encourage some sort of acronym system for common phrases, as in 'z.B.' for 'zum Beispiel' (for example) or 'usw' for 'und so Weite' (like 'etc') in German. Also, perhaps a replacement system for sounds like 'sh' and 'ch' (sh -> " or some other, c -> x or some other)

I om "rly sndwx, bc ilv oms.

I sure eat a sandwich, because I love food.

Something like that, maybe.

 

[Kraslev]

Czarevich

I would use onomatopoeia with a mixture of abjadization (not a real word) and numerical representation. The French do this in their chat-speak, if I recall. I'd also encourage some sort of acronym system for common phrases, as in 'z.B.' for 'zum Beispiel' (for example) or 'usw' for 'und so Weite' (like 'etc') in German. Also, perhaps a replacement system for sounds like 'sh' and 'ch' (sh -> " or some other, c -> x or some other)

I om "rly sndwx, bc ilv oms.

I sure eat a sandwich, because I love food.

Something like that, maybe.

und so weiter  

[Xeigrich]

Czarevich

I would use onomatopoeia with a mixture of abjadization (not a real word) and numerical representation. The French do this in their chat-speak, if I recall. I'd also encourage some sort of acronym system for common phrases, as in 'z.B.' for 'zum Beispiel' (for example) or 'usw' for 'und so Weite' (like 'etc') in German. Also, perhaps a replacement system for sounds like 'sh' and 'ch' (sh -> " or some other, c -> x or some other)

I om "rly sndwx, bc ilv oms.

I sure eat a sandwich, because I love food.

Something like that, maybe.

Check out EasyScript. It's a quick note-taking method very similar to chat speak but is systematic and predictable -- although you must customize it to your liking, thus your EasyScript won't be exactly the same as someone else's. It's not so much meant as a method of communication, but if someone normalized it (adding in the missing bits) and made it more popular, it would probably be the new "text message language."

In EasyScript, a sentences changes like this:
The attempt to communicate with extraterrestrials was successful.
arrow t atmpt t cmnct w xtrstrls w sccf.

The point of EasyScript is to reduce the amount of letters you must write or type, in order to increase writing/typing speed without using a complicated symbolic system like Gregg or Pitman shorthand, and without haphazard abbreviation like chat-speak... Like how you use the letter "y" to mean "you/your/you're" and you'd use "w" to mean "who" or "what" by context and you could specify wt for what, or wo for who (with w/o for without). "Real" EasyScript has specific rules to follow, but completely encourages you to add and change your own rules to better suit your needs.

I do this so much on my notes now that I can jot down notes in class, on the phone, or during a conversation, without even paying attention to what I'm writing.  

[Red Kutai]

Something I like to focus on is syllabic efficiency, which seems like it would be relevant here; I try to make my languages (specifically, I suppose, the one I'm working on currently) use as many of the possible "words" (pronounceable letter combinations) that it can. English is pretty good about this (or, rather, relatively so), but just looking at the most basic:

A - English hits a home-run here; frequently-used words should be the smallest.
E - English misses this one; wasted.
I - Once again, home-run; in English, it's easiest to be selfish.
O - An exclamation, but not really a word. It gets counted, anyway.
U - Miss number two.

And when you expand on to two-letter combinations (assuming each word must have a vowel, and each vowel makes a syllable [these aren't rules in English, but they make calculation easier], you get 21 * 5 * 2 = 210) you see a lot of missed opportunities for commonplace words. English does have the advantage, however, of being able to make one-syllable words with many letters (though that's not really helpful for your predicament)...

Anyhow, if you do intend to make a new language (rather than simply "encoding" an existing one to make it shorter), make sure you pay attention to not only how long your words are, but that the most commonplace words are the shortest...

 

[asdfasdf22]

R1 Big alphabet = good idea.
General alphabet,
a á ɐ ɑ ɒ ꜳ æ ᴂ ꜵ ꜹ ꜷ ꜽ b ɓ ʙ c ɕ d ɖ ɗ ȸ ʣ ʤ ʥ e é ɘ ə ɚ ɛ ɜ ɝ ɞ ʚ f ƒ ɟ g ɠ ɢ ʛ ɣ ɤ h ɥ ɦ ɧ ʮ ʯ ʜ i í ɨ ɩ ɪ j ʝ k ᶄ ʞ ɫ ɬ ɭ ɮ ʟ m ɯ ɰ ɱ n ŋ ɲ ɳ ɴ o ó ɵ ɶ œ ᴔ ꝏ ɔ ƣ ɷ p ƥ þ ɸ q ʠ ȹ r ɼ ɽ ɹ ɺ ɻ ɾ ɿ ʀ ᴙ ʁ ᴚ s ʂ ȿ ß ʃ ʄ ʅ ʆ ƪ t ʦ ʧ ꜩ ʨ ʇ ʈ u ú ʉ ᵫ ʊ v ʋ ʌ w ʍ ƿ y ʎ ʏ z ʐ ʑ ɀ ʒ ƹ ʓ ʔ ʡ ʕ ʢ ʖ ʗ ʘ Ƅ ƨ

Some special characters that we could use,

˹ ʹ ʺ ʻ ʼ ʽ ʾ ʿ ˀ ˁ ˂ ˹ ˺ ˻ ˼ ˥ ˦ ˧ ˨ ˩[Common Inflections]
¡ ! ¿ ? . , : ;[Obvious use grammatical mood, topic, list.]
: ;[Punctuation other]
“ ” ‘ ’ « » [ ] { } ( )[Grammatical sorting]
* · • ⁊ † ‡[Notes/Refferences]


And a base fourty number system,–
0۰०೦1۱१೧2۲२೨3۳३೩4۴४೪5۵५೫6۶६೬7۷७೭8۸८೮9۹९೯  

[Layra-chan]

A heavily fusional language would cut down on excess words. For example, an affix for verbs with two person indications would allow one to drop pronouns in both subject and object; you could build in tense and aspect as well. You end up with a huge number of conjugations, but each individual word is shorter.

If we're just doing written stuff, then ditching the whole notion of phonology and pronunciation saves us a lot of space. English has about 1 bit of data per letter (most natural languages have about this much information density), but saturating the space of letter strings will get us about 5 bits per letter (ignoring things like pragmatics).  

[RickdalTheGreatest]

okay lets use everyone elses ideas generally and
for one this insane alphabet… I wish asdfasdf was online wait… ah, might have been an old account of mine but I digress.
Letters would be composed of
Symbols: a ɐ ɑ ɒ ꜳ æ ᴂ ꜵ ꜹ ꜷ ꜽ b ɓ ʙ c ɕ d ɖ ɗ ȸ e ɘ ə ɚ ɛ ɜ ɝ ɞ ʚ f ƒ ɟ g ɠ ɢ ʛ ɣ ɤ h ɥ ɦ ɧ ʮ ʯ ʜ i ɨ j ʝ k ᶄ ʞ ɫ ɬ ɭ ɮ ʟ m ɯ ɰ ɱ n ŋ ɲ ɳ ɴ o ɵ ɶ œ ᴔ ꝏ ɔ ƣ ɷ p ƥ þ ɸ q ʠ ȹ r ɼ ɽ ɹ ɺ ɻ ɾ ɿ ʀ ᴙ ʁ ᴚ s ʂ ȿ ß ʃ ʄ ʅ ʆ ƪ t ʇ ʈ u ʉ ᵫ ʊ v ʋ ʌ w ʍ ƿ y ʎ ʏ z ʐ ʑ ɀ ʒ ƹ ʓ ʔ ʡ ʕ ʢ ʖ ʗ ʘ Ƅ ƨ ǀ ǁ ǂ ǃ ʬ
+

pairs corresponding to following patterns like affricates would be given seperate symbols.

Certain Inflectional Symbols: ˹ ʹ ʺ “ ” ʻ ʼ ʽ ʾ ʿ ˀ ˁ ˂ ˹ ˺ ˻ ˼ ˥ ˦ ˧ ˨ ˩ ˥˦ ˥˧ ˥˨ ˥˩ ˦˥ ˦˧ ˦˨ ˦˩ ˧˥ ˧˦ ˧˨ ˧˩ ˨˥ ˨˦ ˨˧ ˨˩ ˩˥ ˩˦ ˩˧ ˩˨ ꜈ ꜉ ꜊ ꜋ ꜌ ꜍ ꜎ ꜏ ꜐ ꜑ ꜒ ꜓ ꜔ ꜕ ꜖ ꜒꜓ ꜒꜔ ꜒꜕ ꜒꜖ ꜓꜒ ꜓꜔ ꜓꜕ ꜓꜖ ꜔꜒ ꜔꜓ ꜔꜕ ꜔꜖ ꜕꜒ ꜕꜓ ꜕꜔ ꜕꜖ ꜖꜒ ꜖꜓ ꜖꜔ ꜖꜕
Numerators/Numbers Capital 0۰०೦1۱१೧2۲२೨3۳३೩4۴४೪5۵५೫6۶६೬7۷७೭8۸८೮9۹९೯
Miniscule versions of 0۰०೦1۱१೧2۲२೨3۳३೩4۴४೪5۵५೫6۶६೬7۷७೭8۸८೮9۹९೯,
may be used as letters.

other details every letters can be given a diacretic, one Inflectional symbol or no marking.
such as, a å ä a̽ ã a̚ ȧ ă a̋ á ā à ȃ a̪ a̺ a̻ a̹ a̜ a̠ a̘ a̙ a̝
[every diacritic that could occur above could also occur bellow]
The additional characters would all be in the private use area.
the diacritics can also be used with numbers
Each combination of base character plus diacritic would be given it's own code point in the private use area,
since writter limit is based on 140 characters.

Each alphabetic letter can occur as modifier/dependent form including a preceding modifier or dependent form.
and can further appear as a superscript or even subscript.
Further notes:
Each morpheme would be one letter plus optionally any preceding or following dependent letter or following minuscule number.
It can also be a dependent preceding letter and a dependent following letter.

In the year 2015,
could be represented by something like:
۰۴˥˩
˥˩ [being in the year of the years between 1600–3200 CE]
۰۴ 10:14[the number of the year in the same cycle of 1600 years]

As for Verb phrase enclitics, would encode for Subject And Object,
for the grammar one could take a reasonably complete grammar of english,
and a full list of all of their prepositions.