Re: Optimum number of symbols

>Let me rephrase my point all along: There IS no single "ideal system".
>Any system chosen to write a language is a compromise of several goals,
>such as conciseness of writing, ease of learning, flexibility, and so
>on.  What system is best for a given language is a subjective decision,
>based on what value one puts on these differing goals.
>
Well, I think, based on the phonology, that the "ideal" character system is
completely case sensitive by language (as I've said in at least three posts
on this thread). As far as numbers are concerned, the theoritical ideal
alphabet requires the speaker to learn the fewest number of letters that can
still acurately represent the phonology of the language.

Although, in a 'conceptual' system that uses symbols to represent gramatical
formants (in other words, a system that transcribes grammar instead of
sound), nothing I've written applies. For example, in that system, the
English plural ([s], [z], [ez]) would be represented as one syllable (like
"pl"). As far as I know, this type of system has never survived
historically. Does anyone know of a conlang like that?

Jake

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Reply