Re: Optimum number of symbols

On Tue, 21 May 2002 21:08:46 -0500, Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>
wrote:
>Quoting "Mike S." <mcslason@...>:
>
>> > [snip]
>> > >structures, I think the simplicity and efficiency of the phonemic
>> > >system easily trumps all contenders.
>> >
>> > English???
>>
>> I believe you are knocking down a strawman here.  No one would
>> suggest that English orthography is the ideal model of a phonemic
>> system.  It might be questioned whether it is a phonemic system
>> at all.  I would argue that it a combination of phonemic and
>> morphemic approaches.  [...]  Whatever the benefits or
>> shortcomings of this combinational approach, they have little
>> or no bearing as criticisms of a true phonemic system.
>
>Do they? You have correctly identified English orthography
>as morphophonemic, but how, exactly, is it in principle
>different from German?
IMO, it *is* the same principle.  You are giving an example
of using orthographic conventions to distinguish two different
morphemes that sound the same way.

> <Rad> and <Rat> are both subject to
>morphophonemic alternation, but you'd never figure that out
>solely from the way they are written.
I am not sure I follow.  They fit the pattern; why would you
not figure it out?

> I think it is fair to
>say that English orthography is, in many respects, just a
>more exaggerated version of that kind of morphophonological
>alternation.
Indeed it is.  Excruciatingly so.  It was for this reason
that I argued that it was knocking down a strawman to cite
English in order criticize phonemic systems.  "Phonemic"
isn't half the story when it comes to English.

A lot of the times this morphemic principle is just plain
irregular; other times, it is useful, assuming you care more
about immediate morphemic recognization than you do about
an exact phonemic rendition.  (English clearly does.)  In
the useful(?) cases of English, there are two ways it works:

First, sometimes it distinguishes two morphemes that sound the
same way, e.g. two/too, piece/peace, hair/hare, *ad infinitum*.

Secondly, sometimes it unites two pronunciations of the same
morpheme occuring in different derivations, e.g. nation/nation-al,
editor/editor-ial, etc.

Oftentimes the second case occurs with slight spelling alteration,
such as dropping the final <e>: compose/composition, comply,
compliance, etc.

Interestingly (assuming my German doesn't fail me the way it
failed me the other day), the words you picked are *almost* an
example of both cases at once:  <Rad> and <Rat> sound alike, but
are spelt differently; <das Rad> und <die Raeder> contain stems
that are spelt *almost* alike, but are pronounced differently.

Actually, I had written an extensive reply to Ray Brown's last
major post, exploring the relationship between thought, visual
symbol, and speech, and actually theorizing why this sort of
morphemic process might be attractive to natlang speakers,
but I deleted the damn thing by accident.  I'll have to rewrite
it at some point.

Regards

Replies