From: Yash (yashk2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 06:47:43 MST
Why not strive to simplify the number of variations of symbolic
representations of sounds? As an example, one could explore whether it is
really necessary to have 'a' (as in 'park' and 'o' as in 'Dog'. A single
symbol could suffice. But then again, maybe that would bring about a
restriction in terms of the number of different short words. We'd probably
find it necessary to invent longer words or to use many synonymous terms.
If I get you correctly, your endeavour is at least twofold:
1. Simplify existing words by substituting simpler alternatives for existing
letter combinations: alFabet instead of alPHabet,
2. Rationalise the use of letters by fixing a unique (letter, sound) pair
for each letter, thereby rendering existing spelling variations of letters
into a combination of your rationalised letters: j is always spelled as in
the French "je", and so the word 'judge' should be rewritten 'djudje' in
your system.
In the latter case, there will probably be a statistical effect which will
make you (or peoples using your system) decide or natural adopt ways of
circumventing some unwieldy long words. As soon as the words become too
long, you'll probably want to collapse some letter combinations into a
single symbol (another letter).
It could be interesting then, that the pictorial representation of the new
letter be built with the original two-letter combination. i.e. find a
graphical representation of 'dj' which is a single letter, but which looks
somewhat like 'dj' for easy memorisation.
BTW I am thinking of making a mailing list about some of our ideas. Would
you like to join?
Regards,
Yash.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Roly Sookias
[yash]
I would say what you need to target is the unicity of (letter, sound) pairs
(speaking like a French Mathematician here). In other words, Each letter
must give one and only one sound, and your alphabet must cover all possible
sounds (dismiis all slight sonic variations for simplification - no need to
go all the way like Sanskrit does).
[roly]
The problem with covering all possible sounds is that many would find the
alphabet daunting and perhaps even "worse" than the old one! I stress that I
would try to cover all sounds in the tongues I know, and perhaps others
could add to it. Sounds that aren't used in any language at all would be
pointless to include, although writing "noises" in books could become more
accurate if they were included! I do stress that I would try to keep it as
"letter per sound", but with sounds like the j in job or the ch in church,
two letters could be used. For the j, a d followed by a j as in j'aime could
be used and for the ch, a t followed by a c (to represent the sh sound in
shrink) could be used. On the other hand, separate symbols could be devised
for these. What do you think?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT