Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: An Alphagraphic Language

From:Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>
Date:Thursday, April 1, 2004, 19:56
--- 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