Re: Easy as ABG

Peter T. Daniels wrote: 
Harlan Messinger wrote:

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Lee Sau Dan wrote:

"rogerprince" == rogerprince <rogerprince@xxxxxxxx> writes: 

  rogerprince> If one were setting out to create a maximally
  rogerprince> efficient script _ex nihilo_ for reading a given
  rogerprince> language, what criteria would one follow in designing
  rogerprince> glyphs, assigning phonemic values, etc?

You've already assumed that ALL scripts have to be phonemic?

Phonological. They do.

How can it be impossible to design a non-phonological writing system?

It would, by definition, not be a writing system.

By what definition? If someone who had no knowledge of the pronunciation of any Chinese zi4 or ci2 invented a set of new symbols and mapped them one-to-one onto the set of Chinese characters, the new symbols could be used to write Chinese just as systematically as the "real" characters. They new symbols would be written, and they would have no phonological component. By what useful definition would they not be a "writing system"?
.

Quantcast