Print

Print


Gary Shannon wrote:
>1. Of first importance (to me) is reading efficiency. A thing written once 
>can
>be read again and again, so the ease and quickness with which it can be 
>read
>outweighs the ease of writing.
>
>2. It should be relatively compact, without sacrificing readability. If the
>same novel can be printed in one writing system on 30% fewer pages than 
>with
>another writing system, then the eye can scan it 30% faster, and 30% fewer
>trees need to be cut down to make paper.
>
>Any other criteria are, to me, of negliable significance and can be 
>ignored.

Do you mean to exclude ease of learning explicitely or implicitely? Because 
you could take this approach to its extreme and have different symbols for 
the 5 million most common sentences + individual word diacritics to deal 
with the rest... Then the writing system will be virtually impossible to 
learn, but it *would* be ridiculously efficient for a hypothetical fully 
taught reader. It's of no use if no fully taught readers exist, however.

The fully taught writer would also probably not be all that efficient; to 
think up 5 million maximally distinct glyphs, you'd probably have to resort 
to means such as color, texture, 3D shape, odor...

....I'd take my argument further, but I have to go now.

John Vertical