Minhast: Difference between revisions

Line 267:

Although the Tašširkantaft is based on the Baybayin, several differences can be found between the two. Several Minhast innovations arose, partly from the influence of the materials used for writing, and the addition of characters from the older Minhast ideographic-logographic script. Comparisons and contrasts are enumerated as follows:

The relationship between the glottal stop in the Baybayin and that of the Tašširkantaft is recognizable. The Tašširkantaft glyph for <d> is actually an inverted form of the Baybayin glyph for <t>. Similarly, the Tašširkantaft glyph for <z> is descended from the Baybayin glyph <s>. Other discernable similarities can be found with the glyphs <l> and <m>. Some phonemes not found in the Tagalog or Ilocano languages were innovated, but these innovations came from ~~this~~ method of deriving additional glyphs from a base glyph from which certain classes of phonemes could be ~~based from~~.

The relationship between the glottal stop in the Baybayin and that of the Tašširkantaft is recognizable. The Tašširkantaft glyph for <d> is actually an inverted form of the Baybayin glyph for <t>. Similarly, the Tašširkantaft glyph for <z> is descended from the Baybayin glyph <s>. Other discernable similarities can be found with the glyphs <l> and <m>. Some phonemes not found in the Tagalog or Ilocano languages were innovated, but these innovations came from a method of deriving additional glyphs from a base glyph from which certain classes of phonemes could be derived.

The Tašširkantaft was modified from the original Baybayin to map a base glyph and its variants to certain related phonemes (e.g. the base glyph <b> and its variants to the labial consonants). For example, the glyphs for the labials <b>, <p>, and <f> are based on the glyph <b>. Additions of dashes to the base glyph distinguish voiced, unvoiced, and fricatives. This explains why there is less variability in the Tašširkantaft script. The <d> and <t> glyphs in the Baybayin are noticeably different from each other; in contrast the glyphs in the Tašširkantaft for these same glyphs differ from each other only by the addition of a dash to the glyph <t> from the base glyph, <d>. As can be seen from the chart, the voiced consonant is assigned the base glyph, and dashes are added to this base glyph for unvoiced and fricatives for a given phonemic class (labials, dentals, aleveolars, etc). The Tašširkantaft is thus more economical.

@@ Line 267: / Line 267: @@
 Although the Tašširkantaft is based on the Baybayin, several differences can be found between the two.  Several Minhast innovations arose, partly from the influence of the materials used for writing, and the addition of characters from the older Minhast ideographic-logographic script.  Comparisons and contrasts are enumerated as follows:
-The relationship between the glottal stop in the Baybayin and that of the Tašširkantaft is recognizable.  The Tašširkantaft glyph for <d> is actually an inverted form of the Baybayin glyph for <t>.  Similarly, the Tašširkantaft glyph for <z> is descended from the Baybayin glyph &lt;s&gt;.  Other discernable similarities can be found with the glyphs <l> and <m>.  Some phonemes not found in the Tagalog or Ilocano languages were innovated, but these innovations came from this method of deriving additional glyphs from a base glyph from which certain classes of phonemes could be based from.
+The relationship between the glottal stop in the Baybayin and that of the Tašširkantaft is recognizable.  The Tašširkantaft glyph for <d> is actually an inverted form of the Baybayin glyph for <t>.  Similarly, the Tašširkantaft glyph for <z> is descended from the Baybayin glyph &lt;s&gt;.  Other discernable similarities can be found with the glyphs <l> and <m>.  Some phonemes not found in the Tagalog or Ilocano languages were innovated, but these innovations came from a method of deriving additional glyphs from a base glyph from which certain classes of phonemes could be derived.
 The Tašširkantaft was modified from the original Baybayin to map a base glyph and its variants to certain related phonemes (e.g. the base glyph &lt;b&gt; and its variants to the labial consonants).  For example, the glyphs for the labials &lt;b&gt;, &lt;p&gt;, and <f> are based on the glyph &lt;b&gt;.  Additions of dashes to the base glyph distinguish voiced, unvoiced, and fricatives.  This explains why there is less variability in the Tašširkantaft script.  The <d> and <t> glyphs in the Baybayin are noticeably different from each other; in contrast the glyphs in the Tašširkantaft for these same glyphs differ from each other only by the addition of a dash to the glyph <t> from the base glyph, <d>.  As can be seen from the chart, the voiced consonant is assigned the base glyph, and dashes are added to this base glyph for unvoiced and fricatives for a given phonemic class (labials, dentals, aleveolars, etc). The Tašširkantaft is thus more economical.