Re: Optimum number of symbols

Mike S:
> 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?
Formerly a requirement of characters in the Livagian script was that
they could be written in a single stroke from top left to bottom
right (or top right to bottom left when switching direction in
boustrophedon mode). There was no trouble in generating scores of
characters as simple as the roman miniscules, though clearly there
is a loss of redundancy/distinctiveness. As the character inventory
grew and grew, though, I decided to admit diacritical marks placed
above and below characters, for they multiply the inventory of
characters without greatly adding to the average graphical or
scriptoral complexity.

> 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.
Indeed. And in what way does using a featural alphabet undermine
its alphabethood? For example, if characters with ascenders were
voiceless consonants, with descenders were voiced consonants, and
without either were vowels, would this prove to you that alphabets
were not the optimal system and that pure featural scripts were?

> To do so is to demolish the entire argument that syllable-characters
> are easier to teach.
Hardly. The independent pronounceability of a character is an
important aid to first learning it. (And note how children learning
to spell in English go through a phase of treating letters as
syllables -- e.g. <lat> for <later>.) Once some symbols were
learnt, the learner could then recognize the featural/phonemic
element to their construction, and use knowledge of this pattern
as an aid to learning the rest of the symbols.

> 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.
Learnability and economy, as already stated.

--And.