Re: Optimum number of symbols

From: "Muke Tever" <alrivera@...>
> > > "Mike S." wrote:
> > > > But I'll tell you what you can't do.  Upon seeing a new syllabic,
> > > > you can *not* guess what it sounds like.  However, in a alphabetic
> > > > system, upon seeing a new word, you have a fighting chance of
> > > > getting the sound on the basis of the letters you know.
>
> You stated that "in a alphabetic system, upon seeing a new word, you have
a
> fighting chance of getting the sound on the basis of the letters you
know."
> Given that that statement is true of syllabic systems also, it is actually
> rather unclear what it was you were trying to say at all.
I know that the paragraph is not perfectly clear.  The main idea
of the paragraph is that I am comparing child A encountering
an unknown _syllabic_ with child B encountering an unknown _word_.

In addition, child A is still learning his syllabary at the same
time that child B has learned his alphabet.  This is because while
an alphabet has typically about C + V characters, a typical
syllabary has an approximate minimum of C x V characters, and
perhaps several times that, depending on syllable complexity.

Regards

Replies