Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Optimum number of symbols

From:Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>
Date:Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 3:44
Quoting "Mike S." <mcslason@...>:

> On Tue, 21 May 2002 21:08:46 -0500, Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...> > wrote: > >Quoting "Mike S." <mcslason@...>: > > > >> > [snip] > >> > >structures, I think the simplicity and efficiency of the phonemic > >> > >system easily trumps all contenders. > >> > > >> > English??? > >> > >> I believe you are knocking down a strawman here. No one would > >> suggest that English orthography is the ideal model of a phonemic > >> system. It might be questioned whether it is a phonemic system > >> at all. I would argue that it a combination of phonemic and > >> morphemic approaches. [...] Whatever the benefits or > >> shortcomings of this combinational approach, they have little > >> or no bearing as criticisms of a true phonemic system.
[...]
> Interestingly (assuming my German doesn't fail me the way it > failed me the other day), the words you picked are *almost* an > example of both cases at once: <Rad> and <Rat> sound alike, but > are spelt differently; <das Rad> und <die Raeder> contain stems > that are spelt *almost* alike, but are pronounced differently.
Actually, I was referring to different forms: <Rad> and <Rat> are homophonous in the singular, and yet are phonologically distinct in the plural: <Räder> /RE:d@/ and <Räter> /RE:t@/. This does bear on the criticism of a true phonemic system, since a true phonemic system will fail to capture phonological neutralizations like that in the German data I presented. That is, /Rat/ is really two distinct words: /Rat/-1 and /Rat/-2, which German's *morphophonological* spelling system captures because it *ignores* the phonological homophony in order to satisfy another goal, semantic difference. In other words, purely phonemic scripts, which would insist on one written form for the two meanings of /Rat/, may in fact be less useful to the speakers involved. And afterall, writing's _raison d'etre_ is to serve speakers interests, in whatever way seems to them most useful. You cannot tell objectively (and I think this was one of Nik's points) what the speakers will feel is the most salient interest. ===================================================================== Thomas Wier "...koruphàs hetéras hetére:isi prosápto:n / Dept. of Linguistics mú:tho:n mè: teléein atrapòn mían..." University of Chicago "To join together diverse peaks of thought / 1010 E. 59th Street and not complete one road that has no turn" Chicago, IL 60637 Empedocles, _On Nature_, on speculative thinkers

Reply

Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>