Re: Optimum number of symbols

Mike S:
> >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.)
>
> My tack would be add that info with the vowel characters.
> Considering the complexity, I'd say diacritics would be the way
> to go:  each vowel gets a character; accent marks for tone;
> a cedilla marks nasality.  I have to ask, what is meant by
> voice quality?
As Nik said, breathy voice, creak, etc.

> The diacritics can be made more salient than they usually
> are in the Roman alphabets.   I'm not sure why this is not
> considered trivially easy.  If use another system, you
> still have to encode this data one way or another.  Complex
> phonologies necessarily mean complex scripts.  At least
> your consonants are separate characters here.
I too would take your tack, but the diacritics and, arguably,
the vowel characters would not represent segmental phonemes.
In consequence, the result might not, strictly speaking, be
an alphabet.

A similar argument could be made for languages with very
large consonant inventories that arrange themselves into
orderly grids of phonation/initiation + place + manner +
secondary articulation (e.g. palatalization). That is, a
writing scheme that to some extent decomposes individual
segments might be both more manageable and more faithful to
the phonological of the language.

--And.