 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999 time: 13:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's debatable that a logographic system is superior to a phonetic system. Instead of conveying sounds, it conveys meanings directly. Thus, it's more compact and has a higher information density. |
Actually, I think that's not true.
A proficient speaker of English also gets the meaning more or less directly from the appearance of the word, they don't mentally "sound it out". Most of the time, the shape of the word is recognized and processsed directly into meaning without use of phonetic cues, so I think the information density level is about the same.
On the other hand, character-based systems suffer from the serious disadvantage of being divorced from the spoken language. With character-based writing systems, you have to memorize additional unrelated data (i.e. the pronunciation) for each character.
With phonetic languages, the verbal and written languages reinforce each other, instead of being more-or-less unrelated parallel codes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kassiopeia
|
 |
Jyväskylä, Finland
Jul 2001 time: 07:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mindseye
Actually, I think that's not true.
A proficient speaker of English also gets the meaning more or less directly from the appearance of the word, they don't mentally "sound it out". Most of the time, the shape of the word is recognized and processsed directly into meaning without use of phonetic cues, so I think the information density level is about the same. |
Words are, in effect, pictures the same way logocraphic characters are, but they are composed of a set of smaller elements. Efficiency-wise, however, the system I'm writing this in is more efficient, in that I can express any word of the English language with just a bit over twenty different symbols (which fit on an input device like a keyboard) while with thousands of characters it's not quite as simple.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mindseye
A proficient speaker of English also gets the meaning more or less directly from the appearance of the word, they don't mentally "sound it out". Most of the time, the shape of the word is recognized and processsed directly into meaning without use of phonetic cues, so I think the information density level is about the same. |
That's speed reading.
You do that by taking a phonetic system and hammer it into - you guess it - a ideographic system. Thus proving the advantage of ideographic systems. 
If you take a book and compare the English (or French, German, even Japanese) original and the Chinese translation, the Chinese version is always thinner. That means the Chinese representation takes up less space.
quote: Originally posted by mindseye
On the other hand, character-based systems suffer from the serious disadvantage of being divorced from the spoken language. With character-based writing systems, you have to memorize additional unrelated data (i.e. the pronunciation) for each character.
With phonetic languages, the verbal and written languages reinforce each other, instead of being more-or-less unrelated parallel codes. |
That's not that much extra information. In English, you have to remember how to spell a word, how to pronounce it, and the word's meaning(s). In Chinese, you remember how to write a character, how to pronounce it, and its meaning(s).
Granted, in a phonetic system, knowing the spelling of a word helps a lot with the pronounciation, so there's a short cut there.
Though a normal person doesn't need more than 3,000 Chinese characters to be literate. For English, you need to know 10,000 words.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|