Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Optimum number of symbols

From:Wesley Parish <wes.parish@...>
Date:Monday, May 20, 2002, 8:41
Any point in asking if there are any conlangers who have built scripts
similar to the Indian systems?  Monophonemic syllabary, representing
[character] + /a/, with subscripted or superscripted marking for the other
vowels, and including a postscripted letter to indicate /aa/?

Or something similar - I can imagine some constructed or retroconstructed
human species - homo habilis for example - having grave difficulty with /a/
and /e/ and /i/, while their lips wouldn't be flexible enough to handle the
rounding needed for full use of the remainder vowels.

Wesley Parish

On Mon, 20 May 2002 04:42, Raymond Brown wrote:
> We've recently been arguing whether an optimum number of root morphemes > might be something like Dublex's 400 or Duton's 491 (I don't recall if > Javier given a number for Futurese or not). But what about the optimum > number of _symbols_? > > Futurese, like most con-IALs, adopts the modern Roman alphabet (so do both > current versions of BrSc); and there's been some argument whether that > compromises Javier's aim of being culturally neutral or not. But obviously > the main reason for both Javier & myself adopting the Roman alphabet for > our conlangs is pragmatic: that's what the majority of keyboards provide > and we're still often restricted by ASCII. > > But nearly 40 years ago in "Language and Symbolic Systems", Yuen Ren Chao > called the number of letters in the Roman alphabet 'paltry'. In one place > in the book, he wrote: > "I often speculate whether an ideal system of writing would not be some > golden mean between the unwieldy thousands of arbitrary units [of the > Chinese characters] and the paltry few letters of the Latin alphabet. To > make a wild guess at an optimum number of symbols, if we take say the > geometric mean between the number of letters of the Latin alphabet and the > number of one of the sets of basic characters of 1000 or 1100, it will come > out to a list of roughly 170 symbols, which seems to be a list of > manageable size." > > Later in the book, in a chapter discussing the "10 requirements for good > symbols", he writes: > "Ideally, in the quest for a universal system of symbols, be it for the > natural languages or for an artificial international language, we are bound > to be pulled in various directions by the partially conflicting > requirements, as we have been considering. If vested interest could be > discounted in favour of end efficiency, my guess for an ideal system of > visual and auditory symbols for general purposes of speech and thought will > involve neither the extreme paucity in elementary units nor the extreme > luxury of thousands of them, but probably about 200 monosyllabic symbols, > such that a string of "seven plus or minus two" of them can be easily > grasped in one span of attention." > > I do not BTW understand the "200 monosyllabic symbols" to be the same as > '200 monosyllabic root morphemes'. In neither of these passage does he > mention morphemes. But the second paragraph quoted would seem to me to > suggest a phonology of 200 basic monosyllables. > > Obviously, 200 simple symbols would make for greater compactness than the > 26 letters of the Roman alphabet [or the approx. 70 symbols used by Lin] > > :) > > Most westerners seem to take it for granted that a script where each > grapheme = 1 phoneme is best, i.e. an alphabet of a some 'paltry few' 20 to > 30+ symbols. That view is clearly not universal. It would interesting to > know if Hanuman Zhang regards our Roman/Latin script as paltry; and Mathias > has shown a healthy questioning of western assumptions. > > So: > 1. What is the optimum number of symbols? > 2. If the optimum number is in the hundreds (or thousands!), what would > each symbol represent? > > I know some artlangers have devised their own scripts. > 3. Have such scripts been alphabetic (like JRRT's Tengawr and Dwarvish > runes), or have you used some other system? > 4. Were you motivated by any thoughts of 'optimality' or just doing it for > the fun of creating? > > Finally: > 5. Have any designers of auxlangs and/or engelangs devised a special set of > symbols for their languages? If so, why? > > Ray (in questioning mode) > > > > > > > ======================================================= > Speech is _poiesis_ and human linguistic articulation > is centrally creative. > GEORGE STEINER. > =======================================================
-- Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."

Replies

Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
JS Bangs <jaspax@...>
Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>