Re: Optimum number of symbols

From: "Mike S." <mcslason@...>
> From: "Muke Tever" <alrivera@...>
> > > > "Mike S." wrote:
> > > > > But I'll tell you what you can't do.  Upon seeing a new syllabic,
> > > > > you can *not* guess what it sounds like.  However, in a alphabetic
> > > > > system, upon seeing a new word, you have a fighting chance of
> > > > > getting the sound on the basis of the letters you know.
> >
> > You stated that "in a alphabetic system, upon seeing a new word, you have
> a
> > fighting chance of getting the sound on the basis of the letters you
> know."
> > Given that that statement is true of syllabic systems also, it is actually
> > rather unclear what it was you were trying to say at all.
>
> I know that the paragraph is not perfectly clear.  The main idea
> of the paragraph is that I am comparing child A encountering
> an unknown _syllabic_ with child B encountering an unknown _word_.
But these are not analogous situations, or even comparable, unless you're giving
a language where one syllable = one word!

> In addition, child A is still learning his syllabary at the same
> time that child B has learned his alphabet.
Do you have statistics on that, or are you speaking from your intuition?

> 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.
This, of course, is true.

    *Muke!
--
http://www.frath.net/