Re: Optimum number of symbols

From: "Raymond Brown" <ray.brown@...>
> 1. What is the optimum number of symbols?
> 2. If the optimum number is in the hundreds (or thousands!), what would
> each symbol represent?
Here is my two cents...

I think that the first question should proceed from the second rather than
vice-versa.
In other words, what the symbols optimally represent will dictate their
numbers.

The first choice is whether you want the symbols to represent sound or idea.
Representing ideas with symbols turns out to be the more natural approach
for humans:  symbols, being visual units, much more readily conjure up a
mental
image than suggest a sound.  In is no accident that the first writing
systems
were essentially series of little drawings.  The innovation to use symbols
to represent
sound is a highly abstract idea that was actually quite an important
advancement
in the history of humans, and we often neglect to realize that it took
centuries for
these systems fully to develop.

But of course they did develop.  The problem with having symbols represent
ideas, aside from the daunting size of the symbol set, is that in all
languages to date,
words do not display a one-to-one correspondence with ideas, primitive or
otherwise,
and thus using a true idea-based writing system to represent actual
linguistic
constructions is extremely problematic. Any such system will be riddled with
complexity
and irregularity, in addition to its daunting size.  It remains to be proven
whether
a constructed language could be designed to overcome these shortcomings.
However, if one *could*, it might turn out to be most elegant-- imagine,
going
full circle back to ideograms, and using writing to directly represent pure
thought,
while at the same, not forsaking a direct correspondence to linguistic
expression.
Pleasant to contemplate indeed, but not necessarily feasible.

This seems to make a sound-based system inevitable.  In this case, there are
three
options for symbols:  morpheme/word level representation, syllabic
representation,
or phoneme representation.  Morpheme/word representation is a practical
improvement over idea-based graphemes, but shares the same problem of
daunting
size.  In addition, new borrowings will always precipitate new symbol
creation,
or some modification/combination of existing symbols.  Thus, I think
complexity and
irregularity are inevitable, and that this system will probably never be the
optimal choice.

The next step down is syllabic representation.  The efficiency of this
system will
depend directly on the phonological structure of the language.  In languages
with no
more than thousand basic syllables, I would arbitrarily say that this system
should be
considered.  Better would be the 200 syllables mentioned by the author,
although
this figure clearly represents an unusually simple phonology.  Obviously,
languages like
English simply do not lend themselves well to this kind of system, and
probably
not many others do either.

Thus, in most cases, I would have to say the phonemic system is probably
optimum;
except for languages with very simple syllable structures, I think the
simplicity and
efficiency of the phonemic system easily trumps all contenders.  If you are
inclined to
think this is mere bias, consider this: many conlangers have designed their
own alphabets,
but how many have designed syllabic sets?  If anyone *has* designed a
complete
syllabic system, I'll bet my hat that it implements markers or some similar
regular device
to correspond directly to final nasal, vowel length, or some other
phoneme-level distinction.
Possibly without knowing it, they are, in fact, conceding the superior
efficiency
of the phonemic system.

> I know some artlangers have devised their own scripts.
> 3. Have such scripts been alphabetic (like JRRT's Tengawr and Dwarvish
> runes), or have you used some other system?
> 4. Were you motivated by any thoughts of 'optimality' or just doing it for
> the fun of creating?
>
> Finally:
> 5. Have any designers of auxlangs and/or engelangs devised a special set
of
> symbols for their languages? If so, why?
>
> Ray (in questioning mode)
I never went beyond the Roman alphabet, except that I have looked at the
cyrillic
out of curiosity to see how my creations would fare there.

Regards

Replies