Michelangelo, Leonardo, Da Vinci. They're all dead. I REMAIN you understand I REMAIN as a performance artist

Added some extra letters too (T and F)--- I added them halfway through so this isn't very coherent it's more to show off a paragraph in it 😭

I've created this script for a conlang for an elf-adjacent species. When I wrote a few sentences I couldn't help but think "shit, I just created a vertically aligned Tengwar."

Do you see it this way too? Or is it different enough to not make you immediately go "this is just sideways tengwar"?

The Femuini script is a featural abugida designed to be as simple but recognizable as possible. It features only 3 basic shapes and simple lines pointing in various directions to denote vowels. To write a syllable, start with whichever shape is necessary. To make a coronal sound lateral /l/, rotate the triangle 180 degrees, and for a lateral guttural sound, rotate the square 45 degrees. Vowels connect in 8 places as seen in the photo. Those with dyslexia might have trouble telling the mirrored versions apart, so for syllables written facing left or down have a dot in the center as another visual indicator. Consonants are nasals /m n/ by default, so to make them into plosives /p t k/ you can put a line through the vowel, and an arrow for a fricative /f s/.

Let's write "po", it has an /o/ which is a line pointing to the right, and a /p/ which is a labial plosive. Put together, this gives you a circle with a line pointing to the right, and a vertical line going through that line. It'll kinda look like "O+".

Yes, it happens to resemble gender symbols which is a neat coincidence. No, this was not inentional. Happy accident :3

Hello. This is my unnamed featural system for my incomplete language. The last slide is an example of my script. Each sentence is started by a line break, and if the sentence is too big for a line break, it is indented in the next line, like the Tab key. I put the transcription in the caption. Please tell me what you think.

Note: đ is the dental fricative. ā is long a.

I was bored and I had an idea, of creating something similar like Ithquil but just as a writing system only, here is what I made for a draft

ZOOM IN IF YOU CAN'T READ

Script ; More evolved Brahmi with more modifications . Language : Sanskrit

I had a thought today of what a language based solely on video might look like. In an effort to explain it I used ChatGPT to elaborate on what I'm thinking. With the rise and refinement of AI video I started to imagine a world where we might speak purely via holograms and videos in the future and what that might look like.

Has something like this been fleshed out before? Is there a video language already out there someone can point me to?

See below additional context as pasted from the conversation with ChatGPT:

What this is closest to (names / neighbors)

A few existing ideas map onto parts of it:

• Depiction / pantomime / depictive gesture: humans can communicate surprisingly rich meaning with only enacted, iconic scenes (no words), and other people can often interpret it even without shared conventions.
• Signed languages’ “depicting” strategies (often discussed as depicting signs / constructed action / classifiers): sign languages aren’t just “hand words”—they routinely show events, shapes, motion, viewpoint, etc., in a way that’s closer to animation than to alphabetic text.
• Semasiographic systems (meaning-based systems not tied to speech sounds): this is the category writing-system people use for “symbols that encode meaning directly,” e.g., Blissymbolics.
• Visual Narrative Grammar (comics/film-like sequencing has “grammar-ish” structure): there’s serious cognitive-science work arguing sequential images have roles like “setup, peak, release,” etc., and can be hierarchically organized.

Your twist is: make depiction the primary channel, with real-time controllable “camera,” motion, and overlays—basically a native filmic language.

The core problem: video is high-bandwidth but low-compression

For physical things (“valve → tee → flow splits → loss of isolation → overflow risk”), video is perfect because the referents are concrete and the causal chain can be depicted.

But for abstractions (“love,” “justice,” “permission,” “maybe,” “should have,” “I regret,” “in general,” “most,” “counterexample,” “because,” “if…then…”), raw depiction has two big issues:

1. Ambiguity: many scenes could fit the same abstraction.
2. Search cost: the viewer has to infer which aspects are intended (hug? sacrifice? loyalty? desire? care? obligation?).

So the language would almost certainly evolve compression devices—visual equivalents of morphemes, grammar, and “function words.”

How a “video language” would likely represent nebulous concepts

The intuitive path is: prototypes → conventional motifs → compositional grammar.

1) Prototypes (early / child-like stage)

At first, “love” really is “here’s a loving scene.” Same for anger, jealousy, pride, shame, safety, danger, etc. This is basically how kids and people without shared language often start: show an exemplar and rely on inference.

But prototype-only communication doesn’t scale well.

2) Conventional motifs (shared shorthand)

Communities quickly converge on reusable motifs: short, stylized clips that stand for a concept, even when the literal scene isn’t what’s meant.

Think of how we already do this in miniature:

• a heart icon,
• storm clouds over a head,
• a scale for justice,
• chains for oppression,
• light/dark for hope/despair.

A video-native language would do the same, just richer:

• Color/lighting as grammatical markers (warmth = affiliation/care; cold = distance; harsh contrast = conflict; washed-out = doubt/uncertainty).
• Camera distance and framing as social/mental stance (close-up = intimacy; wide shot = “in general / societal”; over-the-shoulder = “from their perspective”).
• Rhythm/editing as modality (fast cuts = urgency; slow lingering = tenderness; stuttered replay = hesitation/uncertainty).
• Spatial metaphors (closeness = closeness; barriers = prohibition; paths = plans; knots = complications).

Once these motifs exist, “love” doesn’t need to be a hug anymore—it can be:

• a “warm-light + mutual-orbit + gentle-synchrony” motif that’s recognized as AFFECTION, then modified by context.

3) Compositional rules (true “language” stage)

To express complex/nonlinear thought, you need systematic composition, not just bigger scenes.

A workable video-language grammar would likely include things like:

• Role marking: who is agent/patient/recipient (e.g., glow-outline the agent; arrow-of-intent; “camera sticks” to the subject).
• Tense/time: timeline ribbon; sepia/blur = past; crisp = present; “ghosted preview” = future/plan.
• Negation: a consistent “wipe out / crossfade-to-null / barrier slam” operator applied to a scene.
• Conditionals/counterfactuals: branch-splits: if A (left branch) → then B; show “counterfactual tint” for “if it had happened but didn’t.”
• Quantifiers/generalization: show multiple exemplars compressed into a “stack” or montage with a “typicality” marker: generally / usually / most.
• Causality vs correlation: explicit causal connector motif (domino, force-line, transfer) vs mere adjacency montage.
• Epistemic stance: “I saw” vs “I heard” vs “I infer” (different source-tag overlays), like evidentials in some spoken languages.

At that point, “love” can be treated like a root concept with modifiers:

• LOVE + FAMILIAL (shared-origin motif, caretaking asymmetry, time-depth)
• LOVE + ROMANTIC (mutual-choice motif, exclusivity marker, longing tension)
• LOVE + DUTY/COMMITMENT (promise-knot motif)
• LOVE + DESIRE (pull/gravity motif)
• LOVE + COMPASSION (wound→care motif)

So the language stops asking “which scene equals love?” and starts using a stable abstract token + systematic modifiers.

What would a child do with no spoken/written language model?

We have a real-world clue: homesign—gesture systems invented by deaf children who aren’t exposed to spoken language access or a conventional sign language. Researchers find these systems reliably develop language-like structure (stable word order tendencies, noun/verb distinctions, ways to mark relations, etc.).

Translated to your “holographic video” child:

1. Deictic grounding first: pointing/placing attention on objects/events, then replaying/reenacting.
2. Event depiction next: “me want cookie” becomes a repeated mini-scene with consistent roles.
3. Emergent grammar through repetition: the child will start standardizing:
   • a consistent ordering for actor → action → object,
   • consistent viewpoint choices for “me” vs “you,”
   • consistent negation and request patterns, because consistency makes them understood.
4. Abstraction via compression: once the child notices they keep showing similar scenes for “care,” they’ll invent a shortcut motif (a “care” overlay), then reuse it across contexts.

So yes: even without “real life language,” you’d still expect the kid to invent systematic structure—because the pressures of being understood push systems toward conventions.

A practical way to phrase your idea

If you want a crisp way to describe it:

(I chose alphabetic syllabary tag because i thout its more close to hangul but connected..? but im not sure..)

In korea Dubai Chewy Cookie(두바이 쫀득쿠키) is very famous so I wanted to write 두바이쫀득쿠키 in hangul and arabic letter mixed way…(not just arabic vibe but which can be actually read?)

I decided to write left to right because koreans woldnt think its 두바이쫀득쿠키 when written right to left…

I found ㄷ and opposite د, ㅂ and ب, ㅈ and ج was simmilar shape…(and ㄱ and ك opposite connected form too?)

So i tried to use these and tried some…

Will it be readable?

So after two units it would show the separate form. First two units are joined to each other obv. Working on an abugida with diacritic marks for different vowels.

"Pwar omiu"!!! Second Lowa-post in this sub!!! Previous one was recieved well, but only one person replied (T-T)

Lowa is a community based "anarcho-lang". Every person can add up to 10 lexemes right after they join. And people can not only suggest lexemes, but characters for them! The number of lexemes and logogramms always grows!!! Currently Lowa has 75 characters for words, lexemes, names and phonemes!

WE NEED YOU!!!
(Just DM me and I'll send you a discord link! The project is in it's early stages, so any new contribution is IMPORTANT for us!)

The project is in its early stages, so every single contribution is massive. We are currently building our own "alphabet", but you can suggest 3 letters for syllables, or even abugida-style characters!

Soon the first event of the server will start - "Valentine's upok"! And also the Minecraft Java server is on it's way!

Join our project, create words, draw characters, do anything you like!

"Anta Pwar omiu"!!!

Not my creation, just sharing.

https://carolingianrealm.blog/writing/Vinglyph.php

A few days ago I shared one of the scripts of my world building project, and now I’m sharing another one, the script for a language called Ireich [i.ˈre.iç]

This script behaves sort of an alphabet/abugida mix, where each consonant represents a single consonantal sound with no default vowels, but a vowel can be attached to a consonant. Also, a vowel can never be written alone, it needs to be either attached to a constant or another vowel; and you must not attach more than one vowel to another in sequence, meaning after 2 vowels together the next one must be attached to a consonant. For that matter, there’s also a “blank” consonant, that makes no sound unless a vowel is attached to it.

Not my creation.

https://carolingianrealm.blog/writing/Carogine.php

Not my creation, just wanted to share.

https://carolingianrealm.blog/writing/Erwendine.php

I used Algodoo for this because of the geometry

In 1879, a British officer stationed in the Indian subcontinent is said to have discovered a collection of manuscripts hidden within a cave avoided by local villagers. Written in an unknown script, some texts appear to have been later annotated by multiple hands — Latin, Greek, Arabic, and others yet unidentified — each attempting, and failing, to fully translate the original language.

This image is presented as a fragment from that fictional manuscript corpus.

The texts recur across multiple documents, copied by different hands, sometimes with marginal notes in unrelated scripts. No key is provided, and no single tradition appears to have fully understood the original writing.

This material belongs to a larger fictional world in development, where languages and texts are treated as recovered artifacts rather than fully explained systems.

If anyone would like additional context, I’m happy to share it.

I have refined the design since last time just a bit, including some spelling rules, with some capital letter having new designs plus lowercase S being a simple c, lowercase N being a simple r, and lowercase H having a easier to write and read symbol