Re: Optimum number of symbols

In a message dated 05/19/2002 09.44.43 AM, ray.brown@FREEUK.COM writes:

> [ . . .] It would interesting to know if Hanuman Zhang regards our
Roman/Latin script as paltry <SNiP>

    As I am most familiar with the Roman alphabet - and being mostly
illiterate-but-not-unappreciative-of-Chinese logograms, I can't really judge
very well without some bias ;)
    I really like the idea of an expanded, re-designed phonemic Roman
alphabet - ideally based on some hybrid of Roman alphabet, IPA and Herbert
Bayer's Fonetik Alfabet.
    So, roughly - at most, perhaps about 75-100 "modular" phonemic symbols,
diacritics and digraphs, combineable in various ways, may be the best
_user-friendly_ system. It may not be the _most ideal_, but it could be the
most managable and aesthetically designed/aesthetically attractive. If it is
not attractive, how are you gonna get people to be attracted to its use? ;)
coerce them? *snarfle*

    BTW ::poke-pokes Christophe:: Ok, when ya gonna get going on your
re-design of ASCII-IPA??? hehe, I am impatient...

Hanuman Zhang {HANoomaan JAHng} /'hanuma~n  dZahN/

~§~

_Ars imitatur Naturam in sua operatione._ <from Latin> = "Art is the
imitation of Nature in her manner of operation." " The most beautiful order
is a heap of sweepings piled up at random." ~ Heraclitus, c. 500 BCE

~§~ jinsei to iu mono wa, kinchou na geijyutsu to ieru deshou ~§~
<from Japanese> = lit. "one can probably say that 'life' is a precious
artform")

Reply