Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Optimum number of symbols

From:Jesse Bangs <jaspax@...>
Date:Sunday, May 19, 2002, 23:17
Fascinating stuff to think about, Ray.  Here's my take on the questions
you asked.

> So: > 1. What is the optimum number of symbols?
As many as the language needs ;-). For the original Latins, 26 was close to enough (q and x were strictly unnecessary, but they lacked separate symbols for long vowels and consonantal [j] and [w]), but it's not enough to represent all the sounds in all the languages its used for. So if our goal is to have an alphabet suitable to phonemically represent the all the sounds in almost any language, then I think 100 symbols should be more than enough. Very few languages have more than 100 or mor phonemes, and having more symbols than phonemes allows for a closer sound-shape correlation, to ease cross-language reading.
> 2. If the optimum number is in the hundreds (or thousands!), what > would > each symbol represent?
As my previous answers imply, I think that symbol=phoneme is still best. With symbol=phoneme and a suitably large set of symbols, you can easily transcribe any language you want, without worrying about that language's syllable structure or semantics. This is impossible with syllabaries or logographic systems. Furthermore, any syllabary will fall apart as the language changes, as the syllabary will be unable to handle new syllables. With an alphabet, you can simply respell words as the language changes.
> 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?
Essentially. It's actually--oh, I forget the term--vowels aren't normally indicated.
> 4. Were you motivated by any thoughts of 'optimality' or just doing > it for the fun of creating?
Well, I wanted something suitable for writing Yivríndil, and an alphabet was the only reasonable thing. As an naturalistic artlanger, the burden of creating a plausible, historically motivated set of characters is *much* greater than creating a plausible, historically motivated alphabet, so simple convenience figures in prominently. Jesse S. Bangs Pelíran jaspax@ juno.com "Oh, look, you earned your wings Are you an angel now or a vulture?" --Pedro the Lion

Reply

Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>