Re: THEORY Ideal system of writing

Andreas Johansson wrote:

> Quoting Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>:
>
>
>
>>My two sets of questions are:
>>A. Do you agree that the ideal set of symbols to express language is in
>>the region of 170 to 200? If not, why not and what do you consider to be
>>the ideal number of symbols?
>
>
> Yes and no and maybe. :p
>
> If we want a script that can handle _any_ language, I think we're best off with
> an alphabet, and the biggest phoneme inventories being in about that range, it
> follows we need that many letters. We'll also want some interpunctuation, and
> probably some ideograms, like number symbols.
>
> If it's about the ideal writing system for a particular language, the answer
> will be, in general, no - imagine writing Rotokas (35 distinct syllables) with
> 170+ characters! Unless there's phonological constraints that push the number
> of two-syllable combos _way_ below 1225 it will be an ungodly mess (and I
> cannot really imagining there being such constraints the number of distinct
> utterances of sensible length would be pitifully low*).
>
> If it's about the ideal writing system _for a language ideally suited to
> writing_, I shall confess to having no idea.
>
> * What's the number of distinct two-syllable sequences in English? Gotta be in
> the millions.
>
> It's worth mentioning that all the suggestions for an English syllabary in this
> thread do considerable violence to the core idea of a syllabary - one syllable
> = one character. The harsh truth is that for a language of a "European" style,
> it sucks having unconnected written representations of "dream", "dreams" and
> "dreamt". Since, apparently, all ex nihilo inventions of writing systems have
> resulted in approximately syllabic systems, one gotta wonder if writing could
> arise in a language community which speaks a such language.
>
>
>>B. Obvously, 170 to 200 is too small an inventory for all the morphemes of
>>a language, yet it seems rather high for a syllabary. Y.R. Chao does not
>>elaborate on what each of the 170 to 200 symbols would represent, except
>>the brief reference to monosyllables in (3). Any ideas?
>
>
> Four options, basically:
>
> 1) Alphabetic system for a Khoisan language (well, an abugida or abjad, possibly
> with mandatory vowel marks, should work about as well).
>
> 2) Syllabary for a language with a reasonable number of syllables. English,
> !Kung and Rotokas are emphatically _not_ examples of such languages. I guess
> Japanese's syllable count is about in that range, but, no, they had to betray
> the syllabic ideal with funky indications of long vowels.
>
> 3) An onset-rhyme system as someone suggested.
>
> 4) An alphabet with additional signs to indicate common sequences. Latin and
> Greek, of course, already does this - 'x', xi, psi - but our hypothetical
> script here would have dozens of them. I rather like this idea, because it's
> conceptually an unprincipled mess! :) It would work well for "European-style"
> languages, too, which is a plus, since I figure those most likely to try and
> introduce an ideal writing system would be auxlangers, and we all know what
> kind of languages they tend to create!
>
> 5) Newspeak! Restrict the number of morphemes to 200 - the underlings need no
> way to express the idea of "rights" anyway!
>
> (Is there a term for what I here tentatively call "European-style" languages? I
> mean ones with complex syllable structures (English has several times more
> distinct syllables than Rotokas has distinct bisyllabic sequences!) and a
> propensity for indicating grammatical distinctions with subsyllabic affixes or
> stem changes, making them highly unsuited for purely syllabic writing.)
There's one more you can add to that list, which is a hybrid I cooked up
a while back: featural symbols representing consonants, with radicals
representing grammatical and syntactic purpose but having no set sound
value: it depends on the word's classification.

The idea was inspired by the semitic languages, with a dash of korean.
Haven't had an opportunity to use it though.

K.

--
Keith Gaughan -- talideon.com
The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.