A Roman syllabary?
|From:||Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, May 26, 2002, 19:01|
Peter's lates poll is about names of letters. The 'Optimum number of
symbols' thread has naturally brought up the question of syllabaries and
John has mention the Roman letter syllabary of Babm. I quote from the
author of Babm:
"In the first place, Roman letters are used in a quite different way from
existing European languages, namely the pronunciation of the letters is
specially determined for every letter respectively, never changing its
utterance without a phonetic sign. The respective utterance is the same as
the name of the letters in Babm........
....It may be a slight elaboration to memorize only the names of the
letters, since people will then find how convenient this is, that every
letter has its own peculiar sound."
It occurred to me quite independently in my teens that we do pronounce
certain "words" by just naming the letters, e.g. USA, USSR (this was in the
late 50s), e.g., H2O etc. Therefore, it seemed to my young mind that as
one would have to learn letter names at some time, if they were syllables
in a syllabary one would be learning the pronunciation of each character at
the same time. This was one of the things that led me to devise Roman
letter syllabaries well before I discovered that someone else had done the
Is there something in Fuishiki Okamoto's arguments? Is this an idea worth
persuing in an IAL (as Babm is intended to be)? Is this, indeed, one of
the advantages of a syllabary?
(still in questioning mode)
Speech is _poiesis_ and human linguistic articulation
is centrally creative.