Re: Optimum number of symbols

John Cowan:
> Unicode [...] assigns all 1214 Yi syllabograms
> to distinct characters.  (There are also 50 "Yi radicals" which are
> used to classify the 1214 characters for lookup purposes; of course,
> unlike Han radicals, they have no semantic implications.)
[...]
> All the other "syllabaries" in Unicode at present are in fact abjads,
> abugidas, or in the case of Hangul, a featural alphabet with unusual
> layout rules.  There may be more non-featural syllabaries hiding in
> the scripts that are as yet unencoded.
Suppose we can recognize the following sorts of basic unit:

A. Minimal independent character. [analogous to words]
B. Minimal meaningful component of a character. [analogous to morphemes]
C. Minimal graphical component of a character (e.g. bow, stem,
x-scender, orientation etc.). [analogous to phoneme]

Am I right that in choosing which of A-C to encode for a script,
Unicode chooses the optimal balance between tradition and whichever
gives the smallest number of encoded units?

If there were no pressures on 'encoding space', so that the encoding
reflected purely graphological considerations, which of A-C do
you think should be encoded? I shall desist from offerning my own
answer, my sagacity in these matters being of lesser mettle. (To
which asseveration you will of course respond Pish!)

--And.

Reply