Re: Evolution WAS Re: Optimum number of symbols

On Sat, 25 May 2002 18:24:31 +0100, Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
wrote:

>At 8:37 pm -0400 24/5/02, Mike S. wrote:
>[snip]
>>To be clear:
>>
>>My intention was to *name* a process which, I feel, is an undeniable
>>fact of human history.
>
>..and some question the 'undeniable fact'.
It would be easier to evaluate your position if you actually wrote
an argument rather than merely raising the specter of one.



>>   It was not my intention to attribute any
>>moral evaluations to that process.  By calling it an 'improvement',
>>I was asserting that the innovation of the Greek vowel letter was
>>clearly a *technological* improvement over earlier writing systems.
>
>Two points:
>- why is it a *technological* improvement?
Because writing is the technology of representing speech graphically,
and vowel letters allow a script to represent sounds that previously
could not be.  A new technique, or enhancement, represents an
improvement to the technology of which it is part.



>- why is it an *improvement* for those who do not need this feature?
If I understand some of the other posts correctly, there is no
language not improved by vowel marking at least sometimes, though
some were apparently able to get by pretty well without it.
A minor improvement is still an improvement, nevertheless.



>- some earlier writing systems had expressed vowels long before the Greeks,
>e.g. Akkadian:
> v v
> | |  = /a/
> | v
> | |
>
>   >--
>>-->--  = /i/
>>-->--
>
>(ASCIIfied cuneiform!!)
An independently developed technological improvement is still
a technological improvement.  I am unsure of your point.



>>It might be noted at this point that the name of the thread is
>>"Optimum number of symbols".  I am not sure how such a question
>>could be debated without resort to such technological appraisals.
>
>R.Y. Chao, with whom this thread started, managed to do so. His guestimates
>of about 170 and, later, about 200 were based on purely pragmatic
>considerations.
>
>>I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, particularly for those
>>pitifuls inadvertantly inflicted by involuntary visions of nuclear
>>holocaust due to the mention of the development of the Greek vowel.
>
>No - it was because of the introduction of the idea of an evolution in
>which succeeding stages show an improvement.  As Christophe has pointed
>out, every innovation bring both advantages and disadvantages - we have to
>weigh up both.
Okay.  Let's try not to be frightened by shadows.  Might I ask
though, if every innovation brings both advantages and disadvantages
as you say, can you name a disadvantage to the vowel?  It seems to
me that if you really didn't need the vowel, you could simply not
use it.  I fail to see where there is a disadvantage.



>I happen to think that nuclear power might be put to good use, e.g. in the
>generation of electricity.
I have to say, although you strike me as a well learned person, your
continued insistence to conflate the Greek vowel and nuclear power
is the most risible thing I have seen in a long, long while.



>But one has to weigh up the pros and cons.
On the conlang list, I myself wouldn't.



>That
>the alphabet has certain advantages over other forms of writing is
>accepted; but one must also weigh up the disadvantages (many of which have
>been mentioned in the "Optimum number of symbols" thread).  Clearly R.Y.
>Chao did not think the advantages automatically outweighed the
>disadvantages.
Appeal to authority?



>It seems to be the general opinion on the list that the optimum number of
>symbols depends upon the language and the most suitable written system for
>that language.  Thus while the use of alphabetic symbols as vowels was
>advantageous to the Greeks, it is (if the testimony of Steg Belsky & Dan
>Sulani is to be accpted) not advantageous in the case of Hebrew (and for
>the same reason Arabic) which are better written with abjads.
>
>Ray.
Ah, now the bandwagon appeal--why am I not surprised?  Actually though,
I sense the opinion is divided here.  I'm waiting to hear what Mathias
has to say on the matter.


Regards

Replies