Re: Optimum number of symbols

Quoting "Mike S." <mcslason@...>:

> > [snip]
> > >structures, I think the simplicity and efficiency of the phonemic
> > >system easily trumps all contenders.
> >
> > English???
>
> I believe you are knocking down a strawman here.  No one would
> suggest that English orthography is the ideal model of a phonemic
> system.  It might be questioned whether it is a phonemic system
> at all.  I would argue that it a combination of phonemic and
> morphemic approaches.  [...]  Whatever the benefits or
> shortcomings of this combinational approach, they have little
> or no bearing as criticisms of a true phonemic system.
Do they? You have correctly identified English orthography
as morphophonemic, but how, exactly, is it in principle
different from German?  <Rad> and <Rat> are both subject to
morphophonemic alternation, but you'd never figure that out
solely from the way they are written. I think it is fair to
say that English orthography is, in many respects, just a
more exaggerated version of that kind of morphophonological
alternation.

=====================================================================
Thomas Wier          "...koruphàs hetéras hetére:isi prosápto:n /
Dept. of Linguistics  mú:tho:n mè: teléein atrapòn mían..."
University of Chicago "To join together diverse peaks of thought /
1010 E. 59th Street   and not complete one road that has no turn"
Chicago, IL 60637     Empedocles, _On Nature_, on speculative thinkers