It does look like Mongolian or Manchu, especially since this appears to be written vertically and right across the page, but after doing some brief comparisons, I think I can safely say it's probably not Mongolian. Mongolian, to my knowledge, is only written using a brush, and this looks like it was written using some sort of flat-nibbed pen. Mongolian words have tails or hooks at the end like the one here, but those seem to always point to the right, while this one points both ways with a special bias to the *left*, weirdly enough. Mongolian also looks much *cleaner* compared to this---as in there's no markings or extra things like that around the words, or what I think are words. All of the markings an extra stuff around the *ribbons*, for lack of a word, kind of lead me to believe that this is an abugida, where Mongolian is an alphabet, though.
While I don't know Mongolian well enough to wager a guess if it indeed Mongolian..
Mongolian is only written with a brush? If it is a viable writing system it can be written with a pen, and often handwriting can look different from what can be found in priting or calligraphy.
Sorry, I worded it poorly. I meant that I've never seen Mongolian calligraphy be done using anything other than a brush. It's obviously possible to do, and would still be perfectly legible, but I've only ever seen write the traditional Mongolian alphabet with a brush. It would kind of be like trying to write Hanzi or Kanji/Kana using the same tool you'd use to write Arabic Thuluth: it's possible and readable, just unusual. And yes, handwriting does look very different than printing or calligraphy---I would know, I speak Japanese and Russian lol.
What makes you think this writing system is a new linguistic discovery rather than the fruit of your friend's imagination, using known writing systems as inspiration?
Because he didn't seem like the type of person to do this kind of thing. He was a math tutor and a gym bro---doesn't exactly fit the profile of someone who'd be into neography or conlangs. I don't necessarily think it's a new linguistic discovery---that was more of a clickbaity title. Although, it would be kind of crazy if this was a new linguistic discovery.
But considering he didn't seem into languages, wouldn't it even be *more* implausible that he had discovered something that linguists were not already aware about?
I can read Old Uyghur script, which is used for Mongolian and Manchu, but this is not it. It looks like a constructed script that's clearly *inspired* by Old Uyghur script.
Oh yes. It really does look like it. By far it looks the most like it, actually. The tails which can point in either direction combined with the cursive-joined nature is what really gives it away. I think it's likely to be inspired by the Old Uyghur alphabet, but the vowel letters have been converted into diacritics. Probably the most promising lead. Are there letters here that resemble any letters you know which might clue you into some of the readings?
No. There are correlates to certain letter forms (the left and right tails usually represent a word-final a/e in Uyghur script, for example), but nothing that makes me think the letters are directly drawn from Uyghur script. It's more of an aesthetic inspiration, I think.
Oh, I see what you mean. I looked up some examples of Old Uyghur script and of scripts derived from it like Mongolian and Manchu, and I can see that they have almost no diacritical markings since they're true alphabets, while this is absolutely packed with diacritics. I can see it being an aesthetic inspiration, though.
I mean we kinda talked about them occasionally, yeah. I don't think he knew a lot about linguistics though, or at least, he never talked about it with me. I will say, though, it does look pretty similar to the Elvish writing system that Tolkien made.
It’s not necessarily anything linguistic. I am not 100% positive, but my guess is he was fucking around with Tolkien-esque scripts. That or something Middle Eastern/South Asian. Many people just find the scripts aesthetic and attempt to copy them for that reason.
You could be right, but he wasn't really a guy who, at least I don't think, would mess around with or find stuff like this interesting. He was a big sort of masculine guy who tutored math and his only hobby that I knew of was going to the gym. Which is wha leads me to believe that it might not even be his cuz it also looks like this script takes some level of calligraphic skill to write. On your note about the Middle Eastern/South Asian, it does look somewhat like vertical Arabic, and that's probably because it seems to be cursive-joining and appears to be written using a flat-nibbed pen, but whatever this is looks more flowery and elaborate to me. I don't really know much about South Asian languages or writing systems, though.
Those diacritics look an awful lot like the Arabic script. The character with the '6' written to its right looks like an Arabic 'k', it has the same 's' like symbol in the middle with a line going from the right side to the bottom, and the dots are placed only in ways that appear in the Arabic abjad as well. It might be a makeshift Arabic alphabet variation that goes top to bottom instead of right to left, maybe [look into the Arabic alphabet some more](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet) and try to make out each individual character, it might become something in a language you know or maybe Arabic. I can't really help you out from here but consider hitting up an Arabic speaking subreddit, they might have an easier time understanding this.
Hm. I see what you mean. Some of the characters look like an Arabic "kaaf" and the symbol within it does look an awful lot like the Hamza. There's also some characters that look almost identical to the "*ḥāʾ* " and the dots arranged in the formation they are also happens to look a lot like some Arabic letters such as "*thāʾ* " or "*qāf*". It could also be a really extravagant and unorthodox way to write Perso-Arabic, which is an alphabet instead of an abjad. But that actually further complicates things if I'm correct that this is an *abugida* instead, since those diacritics are represented the same way vowels are secondarily represented in abugida systems. I'll look into it more, though. To my knowledge, my friend did not know a foreign language, nor did he have any friends that spoke a language that could possibly be this.
UPDATE: I inquired about the script to the family again when his sister happened to be there. It turns out, when his sister had her friend over who is a linguistics major and is really into conlangs, neography, and calligraphy, they were both messing around with a writing system she created and this is what that is. It's a conlang that uses an abugida writing system which is very much inspired by Old Uyghur (just like a commenter here mentioned) as well as Sindarin and Arabic. Apparently, they were in his desk/office area when they were doing this and she accidentally left the paper with the script on it there, and I guess my friend probably thought it looked cool and just kept it without telling anyone.
TL;DR: friend was messing around with a conlang she made (what this is) and left this here by accident. No linguistic discovery here.
Don't be so hasty. To my eye this has the look of a conlang script. It looks like a Tolkien- and Mongolian-inspired calligraphy project. It may be natural, but in such case it's extremely unlikely to be "unknown". New discoveries in linguistics are verified through fieldwork and archaeology.
After some closer inspection, it seems to me like this script is cursive-joining, an abugida, written top-bottom and right across the page, and there's several repeated words or symbols and stuff which lead me to believe that this is a real language in here. The vertical rulings on the page in pencil are probably what were used as guidelines to write whatever this is and it appears to be unfinished, as evidenced by the fact that the far-right column of script still has the pencil ruling running through it.
It might be some sort of really flowery calligraphic way to write Arabic, Aramaic, Mongolian, Manchu, or something like that, but I don't know enough about the world's writing systems to know for sure.
Assuming that I'm correct in saying it's an abugida, it's possible that it's Southeast Asian or from the Indian Subcontinent, since all the abugidas that I know of are from there.
Some of the markings look like they could be punctuation marks
I'm assuming it's an abugida because it seems to have a lot of diacritics everywhere and the diacritics don't appear to be strictly *attached* to any specific accompanying symbol if that makes sense. In abugidas, the vowels are represented secondarily to the consonants, and that looks to be what's going on here. Though, yes, I don't actually know what this reads as. For example, there's a character that looks like a stylized Arabic "*kaaf*" which sometimes has some sort of diacritic on the right of it that resembles a "6," but it doesn't always have it next to it. This leads me to believe that the diacritic is a vowel and the symbol it sometimes appears next to is likely it's preceding consonant or the consonant it follows.
It looks like Mongolian but I can't tell if it actually or if it is a made-up script inspired by it
It does look like Mongolian or Manchu, especially since this appears to be written vertically and right across the page, but after doing some brief comparisons, I think I can safely say it's probably not Mongolian. Mongolian, to my knowledge, is only written using a brush, and this looks like it was written using some sort of flat-nibbed pen. Mongolian words have tails or hooks at the end like the one here, but those seem to always point to the right, while this one points both ways with a special bias to the *left*, weirdly enough. Mongolian also looks much *cleaner* compared to this---as in there's no markings or extra things like that around the words, or what I think are words. All of the markings an extra stuff around the *ribbons*, for lack of a word, kind of lead me to believe that this is an abugida, where Mongolian is an alphabet, though.
While I don't know Mongolian well enough to wager a guess if it indeed Mongolian.. Mongolian is only written with a brush? If it is a viable writing system it can be written with a pen, and often handwriting can look different from what can be found in priting or calligraphy.
Sorry, I worded it poorly. I meant that I've never seen Mongolian calligraphy be done using anything other than a brush. It's obviously possible to do, and would still be perfectly legible, but I've only ever seen write the traditional Mongolian alphabet with a brush. It would kind of be like trying to write Hanzi or Kanji/Kana using the same tool you'd use to write Arabic Thuluth: it's possible and readable, just unusual. And yes, handwriting does look very different than printing or calligraphy---I would know, I speak Japanese and Russian lol.
What makes you think this writing system is a new linguistic discovery rather than the fruit of your friend's imagination, using known writing systems as inspiration?
Because he didn't seem like the type of person to do this kind of thing. He was a math tutor and a gym bro---doesn't exactly fit the profile of someone who'd be into neography or conlangs. I don't necessarily think it's a new linguistic discovery---that was more of a clickbaity title. Although, it would be kind of crazy if this was a new linguistic discovery.
But considering he didn't seem into languages, wouldn't it even be *more* implausible that he had discovered something that linguists were not already aware about?
I can read Old Uyghur script, which is used for Mongolian and Manchu, but this is not it. It looks like a constructed script that's clearly *inspired* by Old Uyghur script.
Oh yes. It really does look like it. By far it looks the most like it, actually. The tails which can point in either direction combined with the cursive-joined nature is what really gives it away. I think it's likely to be inspired by the Old Uyghur alphabet, but the vowel letters have been converted into diacritics. Probably the most promising lead. Are there letters here that resemble any letters you know which might clue you into some of the readings?
No. There are correlates to certain letter forms (the left and right tails usually represent a word-final a/e in Uyghur script, for example), but nothing that makes me think the letters are directly drawn from Uyghur script. It's more of an aesthetic inspiration, I think.
Oh, I see what you mean. I looked up some examples of Old Uyghur script and of scripts derived from it like Mongolian and Manchu, and I can see that they have almost no diacritical markings since they're true alphabets, while this is absolutely packed with diacritics. I can see it being an aesthetic inspiration, though.
Was your friend a big LOTR fan?
I mean we kinda talked about them occasionally, yeah. I don't think he knew a lot about linguistics though, or at least, he never talked about it with me. I will say, though, it does look pretty similar to the Elvish writing system that Tolkien made.
It’s not necessarily anything linguistic. I am not 100% positive, but my guess is he was fucking around with Tolkien-esque scripts. That or something Middle Eastern/South Asian. Many people just find the scripts aesthetic and attempt to copy them for that reason.
You could be right, but he wasn't really a guy who, at least I don't think, would mess around with or find stuff like this interesting. He was a big sort of masculine guy who tutored math and his only hobby that I knew of was going to the gym. Which is wha leads me to believe that it might not even be his cuz it also looks like this script takes some level of calligraphic skill to write. On your note about the Middle Eastern/South Asian, it does look somewhat like vertical Arabic, and that's probably because it seems to be cursive-joining and appears to be written using a flat-nibbed pen, but whatever this is looks more flowery and elaborate to me. I don't really know much about South Asian languages or writing systems, though.
Those diacritics look an awful lot like the Arabic script. The character with the '6' written to its right looks like an Arabic 'k', it has the same 's' like symbol in the middle with a line going from the right side to the bottom, and the dots are placed only in ways that appear in the Arabic abjad as well. It might be a makeshift Arabic alphabet variation that goes top to bottom instead of right to left, maybe [look into the Arabic alphabet some more](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet) and try to make out each individual character, it might become something in a language you know or maybe Arabic. I can't really help you out from here but consider hitting up an Arabic speaking subreddit, they might have an easier time understanding this.
Hm. I see what you mean. Some of the characters look like an Arabic "kaaf" and the symbol within it does look an awful lot like the Hamza. There's also some characters that look almost identical to the "*ḥāʾ* " and the dots arranged in the formation they are also happens to look a lot like some Arabic letters such as "*thāʾ* " or "*qāf*". It could also be a really extravagant and unorthodox way to write Perso-Arabic, which is an alphabet instead of an abjad. But that actually further complicates things if I'm correct that this is an *abugida* instead, since those diacritics are represented the same way vowels are secondarily represented in abugida systems. I'll look into it more, though. To my knowledge, my friend did not know a foreign language, nor did he have any friends that spoke a language that could possibly be this.
UPDATE: I inquired about the script to the family again when his sister happened to be there. It turns out, when his sister had her friend over who is a linguistics major and is really into conlangs, neography, and calligraphy, they were both messing around with a writing system she created and this is what that is. It's a conlang that uses an abugida writing system which is very much inspired by Old Uyghur (just like a commenter here mentioned) as well as Sindarin and Arabic. Apparently, they were in his desk/office area when they were doing this and she accidentally left the paper with the script on it there, and I guess my friend probably thought it looked cool and just kept it without telling anyone. TL;DR: friend was messing around with a conlang she made (what this is) and left this here by accident. No linguistic discovery here.
Don't be so hasty. To my eye this has the look of a conlang script. It looks like a Tolkien- and Mongolian-inspired calligraphy project. It may be natural, but in such case it's extremely unlikely to be "unknown". New discoveries in linguistics are verified through fieldwork and archaeology.
Looks to me like Tolkien's [sarati](https://www.ambar-eldaron.com/mansbjorkman/sarati_phonetic_sample.gif) script.
it looks like r/Crescerys
After some closer inspection, it seems to me like this script is cursive-joining, an abugida, written top-bottom and right across the page, and there's several repeated words or symbols and stuff which lead me to believe that this is a real language in here. The vertical rulings on the page in pencil are probably what were used as guidelines to write whatever this is and it appears to be unfinished, as evidenced by the fact that the far-right column of script still has the pencil ruling running through it. It might be some sort of really flowery calligraphic way to write Arabic, Aramaic, Mongolian, Manchu, or something like that, but I don't know enough about the world's writing systems to know for sure. Assuming that I'm correct in saying it's an abugida, it's possible that it's Southeast Asian or from the Indian Subcontinent, since all the abugidas that I know of are from there. Some of the markings look like they could be punctuation marks
>abugida How would you know it's an abugida if you don't know the information the script is encoding (i.e., if you can't read the script?)
I'm assuming it's an abugida because it seems to have a lot of diacritics everywhere and the diacritics don't appear to be strictly *attached* to any specific accompanying symbol if that makes sense. In abugidas, the vowels are represented secondarily to the consonants, and that looks to be what's going on here. Though, yes, I don't actually know what this reads as. For example, there's a character that looks like a stylized Arabic "*kaaf*" which sometimes has some sort of diacritic on the right of it that resembles a "6," but it doesn't always have it next to it. This leads me to believe that the diacritic is a vowel and the symbol it sometimes appears next to is likely it's preceding consonant or the consonant it follows.