this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
298 points (99.0% liked)
homeassistant
16616 readers
287 users here now
Home Assistant is open source home automation that puts local control and privacy first.
Powered by a worldwide community of tinkerers and DIY enthusiasts.
Home Assistant can be self-installed on ProxMox, Raspberry Pi, or even purchased pre-installed: Home Assistant: Installation
Discussion of Home-Assistant adjacent topics is absolutely fine, within reason.
If you're not sure, DM @GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not really familiar with Deseret besides the history and concept. It was optimized for typesetting, lacking ascenders and descenders that tend to break off of metal type over time. That makes it hard to read. It sure has an aesthetic though, and I fancy it would make a great arcane glowing script flowing across a magical obelisk. Shavian was made for the pen. Every letter can be written in a single stroke without lifting the pen, and it uses ascenders and descenders to make the coastlines of words more distinct. Shavian also strives for a "mid-Atlantic" accent in its spelling. This does create some issues if, like me, your dialect uses the same first vowel in cot, caught, father, and bother.
Of the two I think Shavian has a bigger following.
Could you write þem with different glyphs?
𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑯𐑿𐑑 𐑞𐑨𐑑 ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑒𐑨𐑯 𐑐𐑮𐑰𐑟𐑻𐑝𐑟 𐑛𐑲𐑩𐑤𐑧𐑒𐑑𐑕, 𐑚𐑳𐑑 𐑕𐑳𐑥 𐑕𐑬𐑯𐑛𐑟 𐑸𐑯 𐑥𐑦𐑕𐑦𐑙 𐑯 𐑲 𐑓𐑲𐑯𐑛 𐑕𐑳𐑥 𐑕𐑦𐑥𐑚𐑳𐑤𐑕 𐑒𐑳𐑯𐑓𐑿𐑟𐑦𐑙𐑤𐑰 𐑕𐑦𐑥𐑦𐑤𐑼.
So perhaps not.
·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 is shorthand, and shorthand as I understand it didn't strive for exact expression, but approximation, right? So þey have different goals: ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 for shorthand, and 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻 to "represent every sound used in the construction of any known language." It follows þat in ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 words will tend to be spelled þe same way regardless of dialect, whereas in 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻 you'd get different spellings based on an individual's pronunciation. 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻's preciseness is seductive, like Lojban's logical construction. It perhaps shares Lojban's handicap þat precision is costly; like Esperanto, ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 (perhaps) sacrifices preciseness for usability. Þe parallels are interesting.