Re: Optimum number of symbols

"Mike S." wrote:
> You fail to mention that syllabic script characters will need
> be more complex as well.  On average, you are probably making
> close to the same number of strokes per syllable.
In my case, there are fewer strokes on average, as many characters are
single-stroke, especially in certain variants.  Out of 81 basic
characters, every single one may be written with a single stroke, tho
some of them have 2 stroke variants that are more common, 9 to be exact,
thus 72 out of 81 characters are *always* written with a single stroke.
All of the diacritics are one-stroke, too, so, for example, klaaf, which
must be written with 8 strokes in romanization, can be written with just
3 strokes in the native script.

> Phonemic scripts are also known for the feature of being written cursively.
A few alphabetic scripts are written cursively, but many are not.  And
syllabic scripts can be, too.  For what it's worth, even in the
alphabets I've made, I've never used cursives.

> If syllables are more intuitive to learn and use, then there should
> be no temptation to encode any phoneme-level information into
> a syllabic script.  Explicitly encoding phoneme-level information
> into a syllabic script is analogous to encoding phonetic data such
> as +/- voice, +/- velar into a phonemic symbols.
Your point?  Such things DO exist in alphabet scripts, such as long
vowel markers and diacritics, not to mention digraph conventions, like
the use of -h to make certain sounds in many roman-using language, like
English _ch_ or _th_.  I see my coda diacritics as being equivalent to
things like the tilde in Portuguese or Spanish, or the acutes, graves,
and circumflexes of Latin, or the raised dot of traditional Irish
spelling/ -h digraphs of modern Irish spellings.

Besides, there are too many syllables in Uatakassi for a pure syllabry
to work.

> If understanding phonemic distinctions are needed, or
> at least helpful, in learning or using a syllabic script, then I
> can't see any reason not to use a phonemic script in the first place
First off, you can start off by learning only the basic characters.  To
teach a child to read, you must first get the child to be able to
understand how to connect abstractions like /k/ and /a/ to make a
pronounceable syllable /ka/.  You do not need to do this with a
syllabry, you already have /ka/ right there.  After they get the basic
concept of reading, then you can go into the abstract diacritics.  For
that matter, I'm not sure if you'd even need to teach the diacritics as
characters.  Does anyone know if Japanese children learn the double-dots
as an abstract diacritic, or do they simply learn _ka_ and _ga_ as if
they were separate characters, the way English-speaking children aren't
actually taught the relationship between s-sh and t-th?

> That's about it.  With a little ingenuity you probably
> *can* create a *true* (as opposed to pseudo-phonemic)
> syllabic script that is *more* efficient than a phonemic
> one, if you choose to go to the trouble.
But, it would be unnaturalistic and, IMO, boring.  My modified syllabry
is descended from a true syllabry, the non-syllabic aspects are due to
sound changes.  I don't know of any natural script that is based on a
principle of more common sounds using simpler characters.

And I would NOT describe my system as "pseudo-phonemic", it's basically
a syllabry that has additional complications to permit the larger number
of syllables in the Classic form as opposed to the Common Kassi for
which it was originally designed.

> But as the rule rather than as the exception, I stand
> by my position that phonemic scripts have the edge.
I wasn't saying that syllabries were necessarily better than alphabets,
only that there were advantages to syllabries.  There are advantages to
alphabets, too, I will admit.  Which one is better depends on the
language.  One that has a limited number of syllables would, I believe,
be better served by a syllabry, while one, like English, that has a
large number of syllables would be better served by an alphabet or
perhaps a mixed system.  I think a system that had single characters for
common clusters would be advantageous.  Perhaps you could write /strajk/
with, just 3 characters, say, str-aj-k.  The details of such a mixed
system would, of course, have to be worked out by analyzing the
phonetics of the language, to come up with a compromise between
conciseness of writing and fewness of symbols, which would, in large
part, be a matter of personal choice.

--
"There's no such thing as 'cool'.  Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
overheard
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42

Replies