3 ms·

The example I usually come up with is like “bad” and “bed” in English. Two basic units with entirely orthogonal meanings, but difference in written representati

The example I usually come up with is like “bad” and “bed” in English. Two basic units with entirely orthogonal meanings, but difference in written representation is minimal and “a” vs. “e” do not have a semantic component (e.g., “a” doesn’t mean “bad”, and “e” doesn’t mean “rest”). To be clear, it does happen in, say, Chinese too, especially with complex characters that have a phonetic component. That’s why it could be an interesting experiment to design a written system that is “pure” in such a way that increasing distance in meaning always results in increasing difference in written representation. (And considering that most languages with logographic writing tend to be analytic, what if this language was actually very synthetic?) > I don't get the appeal of logographic scripts though. I personally think an alphabet with strict pronunciation rules is the way to go. It's easy to learn and more predictable. I think it’s subjective. With Hangul as an example, to me it was indeed easy to “learn” the writing, but is much harder to actually comprehend and generally use Korean language.

oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
> I think it’s subjective. With Hangul as an example, to me it was indeed easy to “learn” the writing, but is much harder to actually comprehend and generally use Korean language. You're right, but that doesn't really explain why you want logographic writing. The script can be independent of the spoken language. Latin is used in various languages, and even Hangul isn't exclusively used by Korean. I think the point you made is not really relevant.
- strogonoff 6y ago
  > You're right, but that doesn't really explain why you want logographic writing. I thought radically novel approaches to language were underrepresented in invented languages, and gave an example of something I [subjectively] consider to be an obviously interesting area for exploration. (1) I think a language in which written forms of units differ appropriately to the distance in their meaning could be pretty cool, and (2) a fully phonetic system would thus not be unfeasible, as it would require pronunciation to always differ proportionately to semantics, which—since we are physically limited in the variety of sounds we can produce—could mean very long written forms. That leaves logography of some kind. (I added “synthetic” as an additional challenge—logographic systems seem to be used by mostly analytic languages, so what if the opposite is attempted?) As it turned out thanks to elsewhere in the thread, there do in fact exist constructed languages that address some of those points, although they are not very popular (and don’t tend to come up on HN) compared to Esperanto or Toki Pona.

oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago

> I think it’s subjective. With Hangul as an example, to me it was indeed easy to “learn” the writing, but is much harder to actually comprehend and generally use Korean language. You're right, but that doesn't really explain why you want logographic writing. The script can be independent of the spoken language. Latin is used in various languages, and even Hangul isn't exclusively used by Korean. I think the point you made is not really relevant.

strogonoff 6y ago
> You're right, but that doesn't really explain why you want logographic writing. I thought radically novel approaches to language were underrepresented in invented languages, and gave an example of something I [subjectively] consider to be an obviously interesting area for exploration. (1) I think a language in which written forms of units differ appropriately to the distance in their meaning could be pretty cool, and (2) a fully phonetic system would thus not be unfeasible, as it would require pronunciation to always differ proportionately to semantics, which—since we are physically limited in the variety of sounds we can produce—could mean very long written forms. That leaves logography of some kind. (I added “synthetic” as an additional challenge—logographic systems seem to be used by mostly analytic languages, so what if the opposite is attempted?) As it turned out thanks to elsewhere in the thread, there do in fact exist constructed languages that address some of those points, although they are not very popular (and don’t tend to come up on HN) compared to Esperanto or Toki Pona.