Re: Optimum number of symbols

And Rosta writes:
 >
 > My previous message outlines some of the reasons why I favour syllabaries.
 > The Livagian syllabary is quasi-featureal by design; so rather as the
 > tengwar's shapes provide information about the phonological features of
 > the segment, so a character of the Livagian syllabary provides, in its
 > shape, some information about the phonological features of the segments
 > that compose it. At present the script is in a mess, with no form--
 > signification correspondences currently established, but in its earlier
 > (and probably also its future) state, it was not strictly possible to
 > analyse the script as based on a set of more primitive featural elements
 > involving a constant form--signification correspondence.
 >
It's unfortunate that the script is currently "in a mess"; I'd have
been interested to see it.  The script I'm currently developing is
featural (I was inspired by the tengwar).  I'm hoping to expand it to
the point where it could, theoretically, be used to replace the IPA
(just for fun).  I'd be interested in any more information you feel
able to supply about your syllabary and its development.

 > On another point, I would in a conlang want to reject a phonemic script
 > because I reject the very notion of the phoneme.
 >
Like others, I'd be interested in some elaboration of this statement.

Replies