Re: Optimum number of symbols

And Rosta scripsit:

> I don't think an alphabet lends itself in a trivially easy way to
> a language with lots of lexically contrastive suprasegmental features
> such as tone, nasalization and voice quality. Well -- the result may
> be trivially easy, but the number of characters needed is
> unsatisfactorily large. (Cf. the numberless threads on this
> list about romanizations of Chinese.)
I think that results primarily from a prejudice felt by Latin alphabet
users that going past the Big 26 (or 27 at most) is unacceptable.
Cyrillic, as Ivan pointed out, is much more willing to accept novel
characters as needed by newly written languages.

--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

Reply