|
 |
Do alphabets need to be so complicated? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Linc Newbie Macau Joined 5443 days ago 29 posts - 45 votes Studies: English Studies: French | Message 81 of 115 22 October 2010 at 12:28pm | IP Logged | |||||
And Macau SAR 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| William Camden Hexaglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6273 days ago 1936 posts - 2333 votes  Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, French | Message 82 of 115 22 October 2010 at 3:13pm | IP Logged | |||||
I personally doubt whether it's "all accidental" - human history is full of examples of obscurantism, and to be fair, also examples of resistance to obscurantism. And often it has been because powerful groups in a society wanted to keep knowledge the preserve of a select few. Examples have been given of modern East Asian societies which succeed in imparting mass education using Chinese characters. But these are modern societies where expense and resources go into education over years, not something typically done in the region before the late 19th century (Japan) and mid-20th century (PRC). Prior to that, I think the complexity of Chinese characters would have made acquiring literacy a very serious hurdle for the peasants who made up most of the population, however intelligent. A hurdle, moreover, that those in power may have had no interest in removing or alleviating. The prestige of Confucian scholars and mandarins was only enhanced by being literate in a mostly illiterate society. I can also think of Occidental examples. The Roman Catholic Church long suppressed vernacular Bibles because it did not want people reading them except in Latin, a language understood by few except the clergy (and not always even them). 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Old Chemist Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5174 days ago 227 posts - 285 votes Speaks: English* Studies: German | Message 83 of 115 22 October 2010 at 8:31pm | IP Logged | |||||
This is what I meant, better expressed, yes writing systems have long been used as codes, but the whole point is the issue of one group of people putting themselves above another and using knowledge of writing to conceal knowledge and to maintain supremacy, perhaps this sounds socialist, even Marxist - I am neither, but I think history bears this idea out. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| fireflies Senior Member Joined 5182 days ago 172 posts - 234 votes Speaks: English* | Message 84 of 115 22 October 2010 at 9:16pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I don't understand why romanization is considered so wicked. Please don't misunderstand what I am trying to say as I don't think everyone should have to romanize.
There was a time when English (and many other languages) was not written in Roman script. I don't know the details of when and how it was applied to the language perhaps someone else could expound on this. The Romans simply had a good system as far as efficiency. Roman script was not invented by America in a diabolical plot to take over the world. :P Not even Britain can lay claim to this fiendish script as there was a time in history in which they adapted to it themselves. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6583 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German | Message 85 of 115 23 October 2010 at 4:11am | IP Logged | |||||
Well, more scripts = more awesome. which self-respecting language nerd who knows a bit of Swedish doesn't feel a tinge of regret over the loss of the runes? Also, as i noted above (or was it in the other thread?), only spoken language can be written by a phonographic system. Much written Mandarin is not reducible to its sounds. All the written Mandarin that couldn't be understood if read aloud could also not be understood if romanized. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| The Real CZ Senior Member United States Joined 5650 days ago 1069 posts - 1495 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Japanese, Korean | Message 86 of 115 23 October 2010 at 4:18am | IP Logged | |||||
|
Romanization makes some languages harder to read than they have to be (Korean for example. Kill it with fire.)
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| YoshiYoshi Senior Member China Joined 5532 days ago 143 posts - 205 votes Speaks: Mandarin* | Message 87 of 115 23 October 2010 at 5:53am | IP Logged | |||||
|
We Chinese don't want the writing system to be so complicated, the fact is that it has to be like this due to some unique characteristics of Chinese language(classical, written, spoken, and in between the three), that is to say if Latin alphabet were officially adopted, we, as well as foreign learners, might experience a lot of problems that only come up in Chinese while there's no such problems in many other languages. It's important for us to maintain the cultural tradition of Chinese characters, but believe it or not, the tradition is absolutely not the main reason or crucial factor for using Chinese characters.
3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| mrwarper Diglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member Spain forum_posts.asp?TID=Registered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5227 days ago 1493 posts - 2500 votes Speaks: Spanish*, EnglishC2 Studies: German, Russian, Japanese | Message 88 of 115 23 October 2010 at 7:38am | IP Logged | |||||
|
Of course, every writing system (apart from cyphering codes, obviously) was created to preserve and convey information, no matter how bad its design may be or seem, especially if you're accustomed to another.
The fact that preventing some people from learning it (or not making it easier for everyone to learn, or just not improving it in general when the opportunity is there) may put some people at an advantage over others is truly interesting and telling about human nature, but mostly off-topic here. I have to say that what intrigued me was the resistance of Chinese, Japanese, etc. to adopt alphabets after a long exposure to them, because at first sight they seem so much more efficient. This clearly means that these 'strange' writing systems are at least equally efficient for their purpose, or by now we would have seen many more attempts to do a switch-over, governments-lead or not. Then it really surprised me that such complex systems were not only 'good enough' not to be replaced but that, given proper impulse, the level of literacy of the population is roughly the same as that in countries that use alphabetical systems (thanks for the figures, I really wondered). The obvious conclusion is that even when they are clearly way more complex than alphabets, they're still well within the grasping abilities of the average human brain. So, do alphabets (I read a broader 'writing systems' here) need to be so complicated? According to our Chinese fellows here, at least theirs needs to because due to historical developments their languages need it. I'm not 100% sure about the rest (actual alphabets) but I'd say they all can be simplified a bit (orthography reforms, anyone?), so... no, they don't need to be so complicated, in general. However, the good news is that the Chinese languages case clearly demonstrates that writing systems don't need to be simpler either, and that is probably a good thing because (I'm going out on a limb here and believe some tentative research conclusions) the bigger the information process challenges you face the more your brain develops in its earlier stages as a child. And that can't be a bad thing, can it? Wow, thank you for making/letting me reach an interesting and positive conclusion about humankind today - the hairless apes did at least one good thing, actually :) 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
