Re: Why Consonants?

>>Hello,
It always seemed to me that vowels are more distinct and clear than
consonants (does everyone agree on this (imagine talking and listening
over a phone with static)), but many languages have evolved to using
consonants as the major indentifier for words. Here are some
observations:<<

Vowels are more distinct, yes. This is probably because vowels are more
sonorant than most consonants. I would not say that consonants are used as
the main identifiers of words. For one, vowels define syllables, while
consonants never do. In other words, when you're counting the number of
syllables in a word, you're counting the vowels, not the consonants. This
is not to say consonants aren't important: every (human) language makes
distinctions between vowels and consonants, so I'd say they were equal in
importance.

>>1. Vowels are smaller when writing, it can be seen that the vowels aeiou
all stay between the baseline and the midline (ok, well maybe the dot of
the i doesn't), but many consonants have strokes jutting out all over or
under: bdfghjklpqt<<

Well, as my linguistics professor has been saying all semester, writing is
evil. In any case, had the Latin alphabet not developed a differentiation
between upper and lower case, it's likely that this point would be moot;
notice that all Latin caps are the same height, with no descenders:
ABCDEFGH, etc.

>>2. Recognizability: take out the vowels: Mt m t th clbhs tmrr(w)... or
take out the consonants: ee e a e uoue ooo (OK, so English vowels each
have
more possible sounds than consonants, but that shows even more that people

think consonants are more important.<<

I don't think the meaning was at all clear with the vowels removed,
either. But, again, writing is evil. English has around 14 vowels
depending on one's dialect, and yet we only have 5 graphs to represent
them. This is done rather badly, as many words retain spellings for old
pronunciations (see the English Vowel Shift).
Also, there are far more possible consonants than vowels, simply because
there are far more variables and places of articulation possible with
consonants. So yes, I agree that they can be more distinctive than vowel
sounds.

>>Even if I used IPA or something else, I think the consonants would still
be easier to read) Originally: Meet me at the clubhouse tomorrow.<<

>>3. Writing systems: abjads leave out vowels.<<
As I understand it, the languages that use abjads are ones that have
consonantal roots, for example, Arabic and Hebrew. The only example I know
of is Arabic KTB, which is a root for "book" (according to the minimal
notes I have). To get any sort of real words out of this, though, there
has to be vowels: eg, kitab "book". But, the word can change meaning with
vowel changes, among other things: kuutub "books". (uu is supposed to be a
long u, if that's not obvious.) Disclaimer: I am in no way even a little
bit proficient in Arabic, so if my explanation is off in any way, I'm
sorry; it's coming from rough notes I've taken and other sketchy
knowledge.
For what it's worth, an abjad for English would be a nightmare; like I
said, English has about 14 or so of them; by comparison, Arabic has about
6. In addition, we don't have anything like consonant roots, so if the
vowels were not written down, we'd really have no consistent way to read a
word and find out its meaning.

>>Are there any systems that leave out consonants?
-Leon<<

Considering that any given language will have more consonants than vowels,
I don't find this likely. It would be interesting to see, though.

The Aquamarine Demon

"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell



____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/