Re: Optimum number of symbols

From: "Nik Taylor" <fortytwo@...>
> "Mike S." wrote:
> > Possibly without knowing it, they are, in fact, conceding the superior
> > efficiency
> > of the phonemic system.
>
> I'm not so sure of that.  A phonemic system is not necessarily more
> "efficient".  It has the advantage of using fewer symbols, and being
> more flexible, but has the disadvantage of requiring more symbols to
> write a word.  Also, syllables are a more intuitive level than phoneme,
> thus are easier to learn.
>
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.  Phonemic
scripts are also known for the feature of being written cursively.
Can you do this with any syllabic script?

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.  To do so is
to demolish the entire argument that syllable-characters are easier
to teach.  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

Now, I did state and I will repeat again, that it is *possible*
that some languages with simple syllable structures will indeed
be better served by a syllabic script.  Here's how I personally
would implement such a script if I were so interested:

1. If it's a conlang, finish the syntax and vocabulary.

2. Examine the syllables.  Do a statistic analysis and list
each syllable on frequency of occurrence.

3. Insist that the most common syllables receive the simplest
characters, starting with a simple stroke for the commonest.

4. For each of the rest of the syllables, look at frequent
words that start with that syllable.  Create a character
styled after a simplified "picture" of one of these words
for each syllable.  The word serves as a reminder of the
syllabic sound of that character.

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 as the rule rather than as the exception, I stand
by my position that phonemic scripts have the edge.

Regards

---   Mike

Replies