Re: Optimum number of symbols

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.

--And.