Re: Evolution WAS Re: Optimum number of symbols

Ray wrote:
>>>
>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.
<<<

um, your kind consideration makes me feel very embarassed  :-{ i would first
need to understand what is debated here: is it
(i) what is the fittest script for a language you can speak already?
or
(ii) what script makes it easier to learn how to write and read a language you
don't know at all?

if it's (i), then i would agree that any kind of script is OK, especially if
you're not concerned with how long it takes for kids to learn it. it takes
several years for japanese pupils to master the fluent writing and reading of
daily newspapers, 3 years for cambodian kids, etc. yet most pupils succeed,
provided they can afford going to school for so long a period---which is not
always the case in cambodia, unfortunately.

if it's (ii), then i would re-iterate that a linear alphabet is comparatively
better on the following random grounds:

(i) there are two pieces information needed to learn vocabulary of another
spoken language : (a) the pronunciaton and (b) the meaning of the vocabulary.
(i)(a) there is already a universal mapping of the pronunciation of words
(abugida, abjad, alphabet)--however phonemically approximate they are according
to And and people knowing phonostuff better than i do--
(i)(b) there is still no universal mapping of all possible meanings of words
(pure ideogams)--the more you dig, the many more you get--
(i)(c) many chinese ideograms were originally made as a combination of (a) and
(b) (logograms)
(i)(d) therefore, making a script relying on the description of a couple dozen
of sounds (a) rather than on the description of a dozen hundred of meanings (b)
seems more time-and-energy efficient to me.
(i)(e) this is quite apart from the fact that the guy who will successfully pass
a law making sinojapanese kanjis be written as key+kana---for instance making
"kikai" ("machine") as "(tree+ki) + (tree+kai)"---will get millions of japanese
students' eternal blessing. just imagine: all those innumerable "ki", "kai",
kou", "jou", "shou", "chi", "kei", "tou", "shi" or "ken" kanjis written as mere
kanas indexed with tree-, man-, sun- or hand-keys! (sigh)---yeah, ok, i know,
that'll look plain ugly. but as my japanese professor Pr. Fujimori--a french
citizen and a famous latinist who foretold us that kanjis would still be used in
spaceships--said it: "kanas without kanjis are ugly ducklings ("de vilains
petits canards")".

(ii) there are two main categories of phonostuff: (a) consonants, (b) vowels,
(c) tones, pitch and other prosodic elements
(ii)(a) funny enough, i can't think of a script omitting consonants
(ii)(b) a few scripts and a couple whistlings omit vowels
(ii)(c) i only know of prosodic drummings
(ii)(d) this is quite apart from the fact that several different consonants or
vowels may be written or whistled the same.

(iii) learning to write and recognize 100 signs is 3 times longer+ than learning
to write and read 30 signs---however this may come to a big surprise to some of
us according to what i read here.

(iv) arabic and hebrew lessons for beginners--including native, japanese and
german beginners--write vowels. don't ask me why...'coz i would tell you why
straight away irrespective what Steg and Dan may claim here! :-)

(iv) counting for strokes or dots above, then under, yet sometime before, a
consonant to guess a vowel just sucks so much that i can understand why Steg
prefers them be ignored. i'll spare you khmer indicoid threesome squiggles
cropping up before, over, above, under and after a consonant to write a single
vowel for that matter--after three years i still have to refresh my damaged
memory from time to time--remember: my point is that we want to teach an IAL to
non-native speakers.

(v) however instantaneous the pronunciation of a syllable may be, everyone on
earth can parse it chronologically. even ultrasyllabiphiliac japanese
chronologically parses a syllable as first a consonant (the "child sound"
shi-on), then a vowel (the "mother sound" bo-on): "cho" is "chi+yo", "va" is
"vu+a". as a whole, i suspect that breaking down /na/ as /n+a/ and /in/ as /i+n/
might not sound too phonomorphonemically(?) far-fetched. hebrew /aH/ written
<Ha> is a nice exception while khmer /kE/ written as <e+k+a> is exactly what you
need as a foreign student to find yourself sympathize with extremist
intellectualophobic revolutionary ideas :-).

(vi) breaking down certain well identified consonants into several phases of
articulation executed at once is unlikely to help any average student (even for
voicing, nasal, fricative, aspiration and vowel opening markings which are quite
widespread according to my humble experience.) The fact that japanese syllabary,
khmer abugida, hebrew abjad and latin alphabet identify two dozens of very
similar consonantic points of articulation is no mere coincidence.

(vii) to sum it all up:
(a) if you need count the strokes and check in a dictionary the key of an
ideogram, then count the strokes and check its other components before having a
first guess at its pronunciation and meaning--then you're learning japanese, not
an IAL.
(b) if you can't remember how to write this syllable #85 but remember all of a
sudden "ah, yep, no vowel here 'coz of the li'll shmitznik down left", you're
not learning an IAL but rather khmer, thai or hindi.
(c) if you wonder whether <bttr> is "butter", "bitter", "batter" or
"better"--then you're an english speaker painstakingly learning how to forget
about vowels. if you don't even wonder--then you're a desperate non-native
speaker learning how to guess about absent vowels of a language you can't speak
and i wish you good luck. same if you wonder how english "read" should
be...read.
(d) if you can't tell your right hand from your left hand--then join my club but
don't try inuktitut syllabary ;-)
(e) if there is an easier way to represent and teach a language than
approximately writing, drawing or colouring, allophones of a, e, i, o, u, p, k,
t, s, l, m, n, etc.--then i'm really interested, no kidding (comparative
teaching witness preferred.) turks, koreans and indonesians must have been wrong
or deceived by western prejudices.

now this is only my personal opinion until i fully understand all the posts on
this thread of which lots of learned vocabulary still eludes me.
as a sidenote: i watched once a NHK program about an experience of teaching
japanese children with the latin alphabet in the 40's. the then-pupils witnessed
to have done very well even with the sinojapanese kanji compound words. but they
had to learn the kanas and the reformed kanjis in the end.

Mathias
http://takatunu.free.fr/tunugram.htm