>From: Kendra <kendra@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
>Subject: Re: Optimum number of symbols
>Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:40:55 -0700
>
> > > In that case, though, what's all this /Q/ and /a/ business? I can
>figure
> > > out
> > > some of it from context, but would like to know I'm getting them
>right.
> >
> > You're talking about the phonemic notation? Well, that's a long story,
>but
>to
> > make it short there is an alphabet called the IPA used to transcribe
>sounds
> > accurately. Since it features plenty of characters that ASCII doesn't
>have,
> > various transcription systems have been created to be able to write IPA
>on
> > media like e-mail. You can find a description of the different ASCII-IPA
> > transcriptions here:
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/ascii-ipa.html. Here
>the
>most
> > commonly used system is X-SAMPA, an extension of SAMPA to include the
>full
>IPA
> > (but some people prefer the Kirshenbaum system). To learn what sounds
>the
>IPA
> > characters refer to, you can go to this page:
> >
http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/.
> >
>[snip for brevity]
> > If you never saw those things before, my explanation is probably
>extremely
> > confusing. Don't worry about it, those things are so much used on the
>list
>that
> > you will get used to it fast. But I do urge you to learn the IPA and at
>least X-
> > SAMPA, or you'll never be able to understand what goes between slashes
>or
> > brackets, which is important if you want to have an idea of how other
>people's
> > conlangs sound like, or if you want to explain us how your conlang(s)
>sound
> > like.
> >
>
>Ah, thank you very much! I am (somewhat) familiar with the IPA, actually.
>I don't use it a lot to describe pronunciation, th ough, because so few
>people have ever heard of it... I tend to describe things in the terms of
>in
>which words they are present.
>
> > > Heheh, that answers my question. My train of thought is basically that
> > > it's
> > > easier to memorize words as a whole than their parts, which then leads
> > > to
> > > parts (syllables), which then leads to letters.
> >
> > It's indeed how we read, even people who use alphabets. We don't read
>letter by
> > letter, except uncommon words, but by the general shape of the word.
>
>True. that's probably why I read so quickly, and why I trip over sentences
>which contain words I don't see used very often...
>
> >
> > Well, Chinese has quite an expansive vocabulary, and yet uses ideograms.
>But
> > first ideograms don't correspond to words but to morphemes, so when you
>have
> > compounds or bimorphemic words you use two ideograms to write them down,
>and
> > even then you arrive at nearly 5000 characters (at least the ones
>commonly
> > used) and Chinese people seem to have no problem with it :)) .
> >
>
>Also true, but I think english has a hideously large vocabulary compared to
>other languages, though I could be mistaken.
>
> > > French in general is crazy. It seems like it's all vowels to me.
> >
> > Well, being French, I can tell you it's not :)) . We have nice consonant
> > clusters too (try "psychologue", remembering that the 'p' is pronounced
>:)) ).
> >
>Maybe it's my teacher. He seems to drop an amazing amount of consonants,
>but
>doesn't correct people when they pronounce them. Bleah ;) I wish I had as
>many french speaking friends as I do German speaking friends...
>Though, my german speaking friends make fun of my r's. :P
>
> > It took me less than a day to learn both Japanese syllabaries, and I
>still
>can
> >read them correctly (though writing is another story. I recognise the
> >characters, but can't remember them when needed for writing :)) ). On the
>other
> >hand, I still have difficulties with Cyrillic, despite its similarities
>with
> >the Greek and Roman alphabets that I know, and I still don't master the
>Arabic
> >script (alphabetic, at least for the consonants), even the isolated
>forms.
>And
> >it's not a problem of time spent on it or interest (I spent much more
>time
> >learning Arabic and the Arabic script than Japanese in my life, and I
>find
>the
> >Arabic script one of the most beautiful of the world, more than the
>Japanese
> >syllabaries :)) ).
>
>Same here, though for some reason I really like Japanese. I've never
>actually sat down and tried to learn the Japanese syllabaries, just picked
>them up (through osmosis or who knows what,) which is what makes me think
>they're relatively simple and intuitive.
>I can't write to save my life though. I get the two alphabets mixed up and
>give my literate friends headaches. :)
>
>
> > You did well. In fact, since there is a 100 mail per day limit on the
>list,
> > multiple replies are rather advisable. The only problem may come then
>from
>the
> > title, since many people on the list decide from the title whether they
>are
> > gonna read the post or not (I don't do that myself. I read everything
>and
> > anything that comes from the list :)) ).
> >
>
>Yeah, I'm only responding to the "optimum number of symbols" e-mails in
>this
>e-mail, for instance. I think that would get much too confusing. I
>practically die when I get home and see 74 unread messages. But they're all
>worth reading :) I will continue to combine posts because I don't think I
>have enough to say to warrant seperate posts at this point. ;)
>
>I feel like I'm wandering off topic, but I really want to know: How does
>one
>use the IPA extensions in unicode [in html, even]? It's frustrating me that
>I can't use the sassy n-with-a-tail, because I really like that better than
>q (which is the Tiri'n transliteration for 'ng', which appears to be N in
>the ASCII thing. Fancy!)
>
>
> > (1) Written English and French are basically phonemic, but contain
> > nonphonemic characteristics whose complexity present great
> > difficulties in both learning and usage; therefore phonemic
> > systems aren't all they're cracked up to be.
>
>Am I wrong to think this has more to do with the fact that spelling is
>standardized, while pronunciation changes continually, which is no fault of
>the system itself? I'd think that syllabic systems would behave similarly,
>were such changes present, though I'm not edumacated enough to know so.
>
> > on morphemics and written French's overbearing insistence on
> > marking inflections long since disappeared from speech, while
>
>I failed a quiz on passé compose for this specific reason. Damn you, "Les
>autres patineuses sont tombées!" Damn you and your outdated gender roles!
>(I
>love french, don't get me wrong, but... man)
>
>-Kendra