Re: Optimum number of symbols

Ray:
> So:
> 1. What is the optimum number of symbols?
> 2. If the optimum number is in the hundreds (or thousands!), what would
> each symbol represent?
I don't really know what criteria to ascertain an answer to (1) by,
though it is an interesting question.

But I do think that a syllabary -- which, when practical, would be
expected to number 100-200 characters -- is a good system, because
the characters are combinatorially unrestricted. It seems to me
more efficient if every combination of characters constitutes a
well-formed string.

Also, I have a strong sense that syllable-denoting characters are
easier for the illiterate, such as young children, to understand.

> I know some artlangers have devised their own scripts.
> 3. Have such scripts been alphabetic (like JRRT's Tengawr and Dwarvish
> runes), or have you used some other system?
> 4. Were you motivated by any thoughts of 'optimality' or just doing it for
> the fun of creating?
>
> Finally:
> 5. Have any designers of auxlangs and/or engelangs devised a special set of
> symbols for their languages? If so, why?
The Livagian script has one character per 'syllabeme' (approximately
= syllable), plus further characters representing sequences of more
than one syllabeme, which serve to increase written brevity and to
exploit the greater ability of scripts (compared to phonology) to
sustain contrasts. The syllabeme is the minimal combinatorially
unrestricted unit of Livagian phonology. The Livagian script
contains thousands of characters, though, so is motivated more
by principle than by practical considerations.

Livagian also uses the roman alphabet as an abjad. The result looks
grotesque but is quite efficient.

--And.

Replies