Re: Toki Pona survey
| From: | Jean-François Colson <fa597525@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 20:02 |
|---|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jörg Rhiemeier" <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Toki Pona survey
> > Have you seen any properly guided closed-vocabulary schemes?
>
> Nope. The misguidedness of closed-vocabulary schemes lies in their
> vocabulary being closed. Reality is too complex to capture in a
> closed-vocabulary scheme.
What do you think about Chinese? I don't speak it but I see at
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/chinese.htm#characters that "Knowledge of about 3,000 characters is
sufficient to read Modern Standard Chinese. To read Classical Chinese though, you need to be
familiar with about 6,000 characters."
Every Chinese character is a word by itself and words of several characters can be considered as
(sometimes idiomatic) compounds. Right?
If 3,000 characters are enough for Modern Standard Chinese, can that be considered as a nearly
closed vocabulary of approx. 3,000 words which works IRL?
JF
Reply