Re: Optimum number of symbols

On Fri, 24 May 2002 03:18:36 +0100, And Rosta <a-rosta@...> wrote:

>Mike S:
>> Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> wrote:
>> >"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.
>
>I don't think an alphabet lends itself in a trivially easy way to
>a language with lots of lexically contrastive suprasegmental features
>such as tone, nasalization and voice quality. Well -- the result may
>be trivially easy, but the number of characters needed is
>unsatisfactorily large. (Cf. the numberless threads on this
>list about romanizations of Chinese.)
My tack would be add that info with the vowel characters.
Considering the complexity, I'd say diacritics would be the way
to go:  each vowel gets a character; accent marks for tone;
a cedilla marks nasality.  I have to ask, what is meant by
voice quality?

The diacritics can be made more salient than they usually
are in the Roman alphabets.   I'm not sure why this is not
considered trivially easy.  If use another system, you
still have to encode this data one way or another.  Complex
phonologies necessarily mean complex scripts.  At least
your consonants are separate characters here.


Regards

Replies