4 ms·

> 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 u

• 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.