5 ms·

That was not by (deliberate) choice. The earliest writings were actually logographic or semasiographic, meaning they represented ideas, objects, or concepts di

That was not by (deliberate) choice. The earliest writings were actually logographic or semasiographic, meaning they represented ideas, objects, or concepts directly rather than the sounds of a specific spoken language. We actually don't know what language(s) was/were spoken by the people who recorded the earliest tablets (not sure if that also applies to this particular one, though). Phonographic writing developed much later and with it came all the forms of textual recordings we're familiar with.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
> Phonographic writing developed much later Well, the earliest signs are logographic. But phonographic writing didn't take long to develop. Once you've got a few logographs, it becomes apparent immediately that you can't extend that approach to everything you can say.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  > Once you've got a few logographs, it becomes apparent immediately that you can't extend that approach to everything you can say. The converse is just as true. Not all things you can think, you can say. I remember sometime in my teens realizing that my thoughts are constrained by my language, an epiphany that sparked a life long interest in language. Now some 30 years later, I feel that I can feel ideas that I don't know how to express, but not for lack of language. Rather, some ideas are too complex for our simple speech. Just as a dog would be unable to bark the idea "energy is neither created nor destroyed".
  - smj-edison 1y ago
    Bit of a tangent, but have you followed dynamic land at all? Their whole thing is expressing ideas through a dynamic medium, to convey things we can't explain through speech. You might find it interesting :) https://dynamicland.org/ https://dynamicland.org/
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      Never heard of it, thank you!
  - deaddodo 1y ago
    Do you have an example? I can’t possibly think of a single idea that’s completely expressionless. Even drug-fueled hallucinations can eventually be given a description; albeit without being able to actually transfer the feeling/internalization of it. You might have to be overly verbose and explicit in your language, but ultimately you can describe pretty much anything using “like”, “as”, and “akin to” with qualifiers.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      I think that any parent holding their baby for the first time will give an example. There is a feeling of existing, of purpose, of continuity. But no "like", "as", or "akin to" suffices.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- cyberax 1y ago
  > But phonographic writing didn't take long to develop. But it did. It took around 1500 years from the first writing systems to fully phonetic systems. And we still have Chinese characters even now, or the Tibetan writing system. For some reason, writing systems tend to stay stuck on mixed logographic and phonetic systems.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    The modern Chinese writing system is fully phonetic, just with extremely complex spelling. There is no pretense that characters represent ideas or words. They represent syllables. Phonetic use of the characters was immediate. The go-to example here is 來, which depicts a stalk of wheat. It is the spelling of the verb "come", and the verb is spelled that way because the character for "wheat" was borrowed with no alterations to represent its own pronunciation, which was shared with the verb.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      I speak Chinese :) It's a mixed system with about 2 millennia of legacy. It started as logographic, then it got into phono-semantic compounds, with detours into the written-only official language (like Latin), and now it's messy mix of everything. There are true logographs (休，林，森), true phonosemantic compounds, and plenty purely phonetic characters that have no meaning by themselves ("bound morphemes").
      - thaumasiotes 1y ago
        > now it's messy mix of everything. There are true logographs Don't confuse the origin of the system with what the system is now. Using your example, what do you see as the difference between the "logographs" 森 and 林? Neither can be a logograph, because neither one represents a word. But even if that weren't the case, on the assumption that they are simply pictures representing concepts, how would you know which one was which? What does it mean, to you, that the word "forest" must be written 森林 and not 森? > and [there are] plenty purely phonetic characters that have no meaning by themselves ("bound morphemes"). ...yes. 森 and 林 both belong to that category. But you've specifically contrasted them with it. I can't tell what you're thinking of. Characters can be classified by origin, so that 森 is "从林从木", 切 is "从刀七声", and 下 is "指事". You seem to be reaching for this, but "bound morpheme" is a classification of the current use of the linguistic element, not of the origin of the way it's spelled.

thaumasiotes 1y ago

> Phonographic writing developed much later Well, the earliest signs are logographic. But phonographic writing didn't take long to develop. Once you've got a few logographs, it becomes apparent immediately that you can't extend that approach to everything you can say.

dotancohen 1y ago
> Once you've got a few logographs, it becomes apparent immediately that you can't extend that approach to everything you can say. The converse is just as true. Not all things you can think, you can say. I remember sometime in my teens realizing that my thoughts are constrained by my language, an epiphany that sparked a life long interest in language. Now some 30 years later, I feel that I can feel ideas that I don't know how to express, but not for lack of language. Rather, some ideas are too complex for our simple speech. Just as a dog would be unable to bark the idea "energy is neither created nor destroyed".
- smj-edison 1y ago
  Bit of a tangent, but have you followed dynamic land at all? Their whole thing is expressing ideas through a dynamic medium, to convey things we can't explain through speech. You might find it interesting :) https://dynamicland.org/ https://dynamicland.org/
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    Never heard of it, thank you!
- deaddodo 1y ago
  Do you have an example? I can’t possibly think of a single idea that’s completely expressionless. Even drug-fueled hallucinations can eventually be given a description; albeit without being able to actually transfer the feeling/internalization of it. You might have to be overly verbose and explicit in your language, but ultimately you can describe pretty much anything using “like”, “as”, and “akin to” with qualifiers.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    I think that any parent holding their baby for the first time will give an example. There is a feeling of existing, of purpose, of continuity. But no "like", "as", or "akin to" suffices.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
cyberax 1y ago
> But phonographic writing didn't take long to develop. But it did. It took around 1500 years from the first writing systems to fully phonetic systems. And we still have Chinese characters even now, or the Tibetan writing system. For some reason, writing systems tend to stay stuck on mixed logographic and phonetic systems.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  The modern Chinese writing system is fully phonetic, just with extremely complex spelling. There is no pretense that characters represent ideas or words. They represent syllables. Phonetic use of the characters was immediate. The go-to example here is 來, which depicts a stalk of wheat. It is the spelling of the verb "come", and the verb is spelled that way because the character for "wheat" was borrowed with no alterations to represent its own pronunciation, which was shared with the verb.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    I speak Chinese :) It's a mixed system with about 2 millennia of legacy. It started as logographic, then it got into phono-semantic compounds, with detours into the written-only official language (like Latin), and now it's messy mix of everything. There are true logographs (休，林，森), true phonosemantic compounds, and plenty purely phonetic characters that have no meaning by themselves ("bound morphemes").
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      > now it's messy mix of everything. There are true logographs Don't confuse the origin of the system with what the system is now. Using your example, what do you see as the difference between the "logographs" 森 and 林? Neither can be a logograph, because neither one represents a word. But even if that weren't the case, on the assumption that they are simply pictures representing concepts, how would you know which one was which? What does it mean, to you, that the word "forest" must be written 森林 and not 森? > and [there are] plenty purely phonetic characters that have no meaning by themselves ("bound morphemes"). ...yes. 森 and 林 both belong to that category. But you've specifically contrasted them with it. I can't tell what you're thinking of. Characters can be classified by origin, so that 森 is "从林从木", 切 is "从刀七声", and 下 is "指事". You seem to be reaching for this, but "bound morpheme" is a classification of the current use of the linguistic element, not of the origin of the way it's spelled.