Re: Optimum number of symbols

And Rosta wrote:
>Andreas:
> > Mike S. wrote:
> > >From: "And Rosta" <a-rosta@...>
> > > >
> > > > On another point, I would in a conlang want to reject a phonemic
>script
> > > > because I reject the very notion of the phoneme.
> > > >
> > > > --And.
> > >
> > >I anticipated that someone would challenge me on the favorability
> > >of phonemic scripts, but I am taken aback by the rejection of the very
> > >notion of phoneme.  Why, or in exactly what way, do you reject the
> > >notion of phonemes?
> >
> > Perhaps more relevant to this thread, rejecting the notion of the
>phoneme
> > can hardly entail denying the possibility and practicality of phonemic
> > scripts, in the usual sense of the term, since we see such in use around
>us
> > every day.
>
>But as conlangers, especially us of the nonnaturalistic bent, we may
>well want a script that reflects genuine properties of the language's
>constitution, rather than a script that is a utile kludge. That was
>what I meant, in the sentence quoted above.
Fair enough. Others among us may find the rejection of phonemes the best
possible reason to design a "phonemic" script - as we know, weird
orthographies is a special delight to certain conlangers! I really should be
inventing something really weird for Kalini Sapak (which's very much based
on the assumption that phonemes does exist as a primary unit of speech - you
if should be right about phonemes with regard to human speech, then the
Kalana simply aren't entirely human), not to mention finnishing that
revision of the Maidzhen Klaish.

                                              Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com