Re: Optimum number of symbols

"Mike S." wrote:
> Does this system export well to non Semitic phonologies?
It's been used with other languages, usually with poor matches, but I'm
not sure if it was an inherent problem with the system, or the fact that
Arabic has just the 3 short vowels and 3 long vowels, 2 of which are
written with characters that double as glides.  I think the paucity of
vowels was generally the main trouble.

>
> >"True" Alphabet
> >Advantages:
> >  Paucity of characters, presumed ease of learning
> >  Flexibility
> >  Easier to make abstract descriptions of a language when one must deal
> >    with single phones
>
> This might be included under the flexibility category, but I think
> it's worth mentioning: universality.  No other basic system lends
> itself to every language ever spoken in such a trivially easy way.
That's part of what I meant by flexible, yes.

> The only exception to this common thread I see is the nonfeatural
> syllabary, which in your classificational system is not distinguished
> from the featural type.  This system strikes me as unique in relying
> entirely on a different level of analysis of speech than all the other
> systems.
By "featural type", are you referring to systems that essentially write
consonant and vowel as separate parts of a single character, or, as in
the case of certain Native American scripts, indicate the vowel by
rotating the character?  If so, I'd agree that those are more efficient
than non-featural syllabries, altho I tend to find them less
esthetically pleasing, which is part of the reason I don't use them in
my conlangs, as efficiency is not a priority with me.

> These things might be beneficial, but everything from typresetting
> to computers might have to be adjusted to make the accommodations.
True.  :-)  I wasn't advocating that we do that, merely saying that it
might be beneficial.  But, computers make it harder to change some
systems.  Imagine the hassles with computers if the calendar were
changed again like it was when the Gregorian calendar was invented!  :-)

> The folks who standardized English orthography a few centuries
> apparently were more concerned with pretending they were in ancient
> Rome and Greece and Norman France than making English more efficient.
To a large extent, yes.  :-)  The fact that English was also in the
midst of massive sound changes helped to complicate matters.

> Your classification was a neat overview and I agree with almost
> all of your major points.
Thank you.

Incidentally, I also find syllabries more esthetically pleasing than
alphabets, but that is, of course, a purely subjective judgement.  :-)

--
"There's no such thing as 'cool'.  Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
overheard
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42