Re: An Alphagraphic Language

--- Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:
> At 07:48 30.3.2004 -0800, Gary Shannon wrote:
> >BUT (in my experience at least) if a writing system
> is
> >not related to sounds in any way, but is strictly
> >visual, it will also be quite easy to learn.  It is
> >only when it is kinda sorta almost phonetic with a
> >bazzilion exceptions and irregularities that it is
> >hard to learn.
>
> You may be right, but no strictly visual writing
> system
> is going to suffice with a few dozen signs, so for
> practical (not least typing/encoding) purposes
> phonemic writing comes out on top.
I'll disagree with that for the simple reason that if
you had a phonemic writing system, such as your
shorthand, and if someone who spoke only Swahili
wanted to use your system, but do so by using your
words, they way you write them is Swedish, that person
would not even have to know what the phonemic values
fo the symbols are.

In other words, any phonemic system could be made
strictly visual by simply "forgetting" the phonemic
values.  Looked at the other way around I could assign
syllables to each of my visual signs and call it a
syllabary.  So the two are really equivalent in their
expressive power.

--gary