Re: Optimum number of symbols

From: "Mike S." <mcslason@...>
> From: "Nik Taylor" <fortytwo@...>
> > "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.
> >
> > Hunh?  Upon seeing a new letter, I'd have no more idea of how to say it
> > than I would seeing a new syllabic character.  What on Earth are you
> > talking about?  Once you learn the letters or syllabic characters, you
> > can read a new word just as easily.
>
> Surely your apparent inability to grasp my intention is an affect.
>
> I was not stating that a child would know how to pronounce
> a letter he or she had not yet seen.
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.


Hmmm... incidentally, given that individual letters get more use than individual
syllable signs, lacking knowledge of a letter can be more damaging than lacking
knowledge of a syllable:  <patetikoku> requires knowledge of eight letters but
only five syllables.

    *Muke!
--
http://www.frath.net/

Reply