Re: Optimum number of symbols

Jim Grossmann writes:
 > Hi, Tim,
 >
 > No, cuneiform writing isn't writing in clay tablets by definition;  the word
 > refers to the use of  wedge-shaped characters.  Admittedly, the use of a
 > cornered stylus on a clay tablet would be an easy way to make the wedge
 > shaped.
 >
I didn't mean to imply that cuneiform was clay-tablet-writing by
definition, merely that that was the main factor accounting for its
dominance during that period.  I was replying to Raymond Brown, who
said "Cuneiform scripts were around for well over three thousand years
and were used for a variety of systems, so there must've been
something going for them".  My apologies if I was unclear.


Certainly cuneiform was used in other media, but I would think that
it's unique suitability for clay tablets was what kept it around.
It's a very good system for that, and I'd think not so good for
carving or particularly for writing with ink, where you can make a
much wider variety of strokes.  If cuneiformic scripts actually
outlasted clay tablets by a long period, then this would falsify my
hypothesis (I don't actually know all that much about cuneiform, but
if I'm talking rubbish I'm sure someone will correct me).