Should there be a uniform writing system?

[Infantry#14]

Yes or No and why?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Well they are already making a latin version of Chinese, and it iirc is going well. Hebrew iirc will be easy to convert and so would cyrrilic alphabets.

So yes, if anything does happen, it would be with latin, with only accents and combination words(like th) that would make languages different.

---
I will support it because it would make learning other languages quite a bit similar.

 

[TheLastOne36]

And i found the wiki article on the chinese romanized language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanyu_Pinyin

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Different writing systems are suited to different languages.

For instance, the abjad system used by Arabic (i.e. only long vowels marked) is ideal for Arabic, because in Arabic, short vowels are usually clear from context, and words are derived from [wiki]triliteral[/wiki] roots, meaning that 1) words derived from the same root have similar meanings, so a difference one vowel won't totally change the meaning (i.e. pairs like him/hem and pin/pen are impossible) and 2) inserting short vowels actually makes it harder to read texts for those fluent in the language; because short vowels don't matter so much, it is more important that the root be clear than the text perfectly represent the sounds.

The above also applies to Hebrew.

Another example: Chinese. The structure of Chinese is such that there are a lot of homophones (don't ask why), to the point where writing poems of solely one syllable with only variations in tone have become a common intellectual exercise; see for instance [wiki]Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den[/wiki]. Try reading that in Pinyin! It's nigh-impossible.

It's easy with characters, however. Characters make it easier to distinguish homophones. In addition, they allow speakers of the different Chinese languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, Hakka, etc) to write to one another even when their spoken languages are mutually unintelligible. This principle works across time, too: it allows modern Chinese to read ancient Chinese texts even though Old and Middle Chinese would be unintelligible to the speakers of any modern Chinese language.

I could go on and on about how scripts have developed to suit the languages they are intended for (and about all the atrocities that have happened when speakers of a language try to adapt a script thoroughly wrong for their language). But I haven't the time or interest. Long story short: Not everyone can use one script.

However, it is important that we have a single system for transcribing sounds, and that we do have: we call it the [wiki]International Phonetic Alphabet[/wiki], or IPA for short.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

What, are my arguments good enough to read but not respond to? Why did everyone vote for "Yes?" I'd like to see your explanations...

 

[Dachs]

What, are my arguments good enough to read but not respond to? Why did everyone vote for "Yes?" I'd like to see your explanations...

I agree with you, in large part because I think that the Arabic script is too much fun to write to give up.

 

[Mirc]

No, because we don't have a system efficient enough for that yet. But there should be an universal way to express any language, if needed, in special situations. Which we already have, although inefficient enough to be far from usable as a standard.

And I don't see the point of having so many alphabets for related languages as we have in Europe (European languages have 3 alphabets, of course most won't give their own up in favor of another, even though certain Slavic balkanic countries have done so, recently). Greeks keep it thanks to tradition, understandable (although their spelling is seriously screwed up, really, 5 characters/combinations for "I"?? Then again, I believe English spelling is screwed up too, but they keep it this way because accents have diverged enough not to have a "standard" one).

 

[Civfan333]

No, because then there's no reason to learn new languages, which would be bad, because then you can't show off speaking in other languages....

 

[North King]

And i found the wiki article on the chinese romanized language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanyu_Pinyin

Pinyin is easier for Westerners to pronounce, but it really doesn't help you read actual texts in the language any more easily. In fact, I have an easier time reading and understanding characters than the phonetic spellings.

Because of languages like Chinese and others, using a single writing system would be rather more harmful than useful.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well they are already making a latin version of Chinese, and it iirc is going well. Hebrew iirc will be easy to convert and so would cyrrilic alphabets.

Very nice, though I doubt Chinese will undergo the same transformation that Vietnamese did.

So yes, if anything does happen, it would be with latin, with only accents and combination words(like th) that would make languages different.

There are many sounds which do not exist in Latin alphabets; for example, about 1/4 of the Arabic alphabet. We have some ways to "represent" this, like "c" that sits off the line to represent the presence of ع.

 

[Cutlass]

It'll come eventually in any case as languages die out due to globalization.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

It'll come eventually in any case as languages die out due to globalization.

Warrants...?

 

[Arwon]

Different writing systems are suited to different languages.

For instance, the abjad system used by Arabic (i.e. only long vowels marked) is ideal for Arabic, because in Arabic, short vowels are usually clear from context, and words are derived from [wiki]triliteral[/wiki] roots, meaning that 1) words derived from the same root have similar meanings, so a difference one vowel won't totally change the meaning (i.e. pairs like him/hem and pin/pen are impossible) and 2) inserting short vowels actually makes it harder to read texts for those fluent in the language; because short vowels don't matter so much, it is more important that the root be clear than the text perfectly represent the sounds.

The above also applies to Hebrew.

Another example: Chinese. The structure of Chinese is such that there are a lot of homophones (don't ask why), to the point where writing poems of solely one syllable with only variations in tone have become a common intellectual exercise; see for instance [wiki]Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den[/wiki]. Try reading that in Pinyin! It's nigh-impossible.

It's easy with characters, however. Characters make it easier to distinguish homophones. In addition, they allow speakers of the different Chinese languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, Hakka, etc) to write to one another even when their spoken languages are mutually unintelligible. This principle works across time, too: it allows modern Chinese to read ancient Chinese texts even though Old and Middle Chinese would be unintelligible to the speakers of any modern Chinese language.

I could go on and on about how scripts have developed to suit the languages they are intended for (and about all the atrocities that have happened when speakers of a language try to adapt a script thoroughly wrong for their language). But I haven't the time or interest. Long story short: Not everyone can use one script.

However, it is important that we have a single system for transcribing sounds, and that we do have: we call it the [wiki]International Phonetic Alphabet[/wiki], or IPA for short.

From my understanding, Korean text is a fantastically elegant way of representing that language.

 

[theskald]

Yes. Hangul. Because Hangul is awesome. Or hell, why not IPA, if we must go Latin. Just mo more kanji/hanzi, please.

From my understanding, Korean text is a fantastically elegant way of representing that language.

Do you see the support for this idea? Do you?

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Just mo more kanji/hanzi, please.

Perhaps not for Japanese or Korean (that's one of the atrocities I was talking about), but as I said, Chinese is PERFECTLY SUITED to characters. Anything else would likely reduce legibility, to say nothing of the fact that the ability to communicate across linguistic boundaries among the Chinese languages and across time would be lost.

Why is everyone so keen on united writing? Don't just vote, I want to know why anyone would want this!

 

[Mercenary82]

Yes, we should have started this in ww2 by forcing Japan to accept the Latin alphabet as part of the terms for surrender.

 

[theskald]

Perhaps not for Japanese or Korean (that's one of the atrocities I was talking about), but as I said, Chinese is PERFECTLY SUITED to characters. Anything else would likely reduce legibility, to say nothing of the fact that the ability to communicate across linguistic boundaries among the Chinese languages and across time would be lost.

I DISAGREE VERY STRONGLY. The Chinese have no built-in system for describing rise-and-fall of pitch, and so many of the characters have multiple pronunciations because:

1. The Chinese tend to favor very short morphemes, which limits their options.
2. There are so many things in the universe to describe with words that eventually on must recycle.

The International Phonetic Alphabet is better suited to Chinese. However, in terms of literature and other language-based art of the culture, so much is hidden and played with in terms of what characters are used and in what order, and the aesthetic aspect of their literature is important, too, so in that sense I may agree with you.

However, a modified Hangul (modified to describe pitch) would serve this purpose as well.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Yes, we should have started this in ww2 by forcing Japan to accept the Latin alphabet as part of the terms for surrender.

There are a lot of compound words in Japanese of Chinese origin which are homophones. There are fewer sounds in Japanese than Chinese, and no tonal distinctions so the problem is even greater than for the Chinese. A possible solution would be to use heavily reduced numbers of kanji, redesigned for greater simplicity, solely for homophone compounds with a latin or hiragana system for everything else. Using the latin alphabet or any other purely alphabetical system on its own however simply is not sensible in a language like Japanese.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

I voted "No," largely for the reasons Lockesdonkey addressed.

Add to that the fact that almost nobody would be willing to give up their system in favor of some foreigner's crazy script. Heck, Japanese are familiar with essentially four different scripts (hiragana, katakana, kanji, and the Roman alphabet) and they don't seem to have much inclination to even consolidate their writing system.

Besides, I'm still not sure what a universal writing system would accomplish. If the spoken languages are still different, then language would still be a barrier to communication, unless you want to set up an auxiliary language like Esperanto or Toki Pona. Of course, even then you'd still have to be multilingual if you want to seriously study literature or history.

 

[theskald]

I voted "No," largely for the reasons Lockesdonkey addressed.

Add to that the fact that almost nobody would be willing to give up their system in favor of some foreigner's crazy script. Heck, Japanese are familiar with essentially four different scripts (hiragana, katakana, kanji, and the Roman alphabet) and they don't seem to have much inclination to even consolidate their writing system.

I have some young Japanese friends you should meet.

Besides, I'm still not sure what a universal writing system would accomplish. If the spoken languages are still different, then language would still be a barrier to communication, unless you want to set up an auxiliary language like Esperanto or Toki Pona.

Good point! I guess for less stuff to remember?