Re: Optimum number of symbols

From: "Nik Taylor" <fortytwo@...>
> "Mike S." wrote:
> > In addition, child A is still learning his syllabary at the same
> > time that child B has learned his alphabet.  This is because while
> > an alphabet has typically about C + V characters, a typical
> > syllabary has an approximate minimum of C x V characters, and
> > perhaps several times that, depending on syllable complexity.
>
> You're making the erroneous assumption that an alphabetic character is
> as easy to learn as a syllabic character.  However, syllabic characters
> can be learned faster than alphabetic characters, as they are
> pronounceable in and of themselves.
You're making the erroneous assumption that alphabetic characters must
be learned in isolation.  I refer you to my post to And for elaboration.

> Japanese children learn the 46 kana
> characters within a few months.  Children are expected to know hiragana
> by the 3rd month of 1st grade, and usually already know it before they
> enter 1st grade, taught by family.  Even regular alphabets take longer
> to learn.
I am relatively unfamiliar with Japanese script, but I have studied
enough Japanese grammar to know that, while the syllable structure
is simple, it's not that simple.  There are more than 46 syllables.
So what I must assume here is that this achievement represents
the Japanese equivalent of singing the ABC song.  In other words,
not a measure of proficiency in the written language to any degree.

If I turn out to be wrong in my guess on the measure of proficiency,
this still doesn't mean much, I'm afraid.  The Japanese have a very
unique language, and culture;  I do not believe you can draw any
meaningful conclusions from such a casual comparison.

So how do you know that, were the Japanese to adopt an alphabet,
Japanese children wouldn't learn how to read and write even faster?

Regards

Reply