Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
From: rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Richard Wojcik)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Re: Infinite alphabets - (Turing via Berke)
Message-ID: <2428@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Oct-87 12:07:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.2428
Posted: Fri Oct 16 12:07:26 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 16:15:33 EDT
References: <154@Aragorn.UUCP> <114400001@exunido.UUCP>
Reply-To: rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Richard Wojcik)
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 10
Xref: mnetor sci.lang:1603 comp.ai:950 comp.ai.neural-nets:21

There seems to be some confusion over the nature of writing systems for
human languages.  There are three 'ideal' types: logographic
(word-based), syllabic, and alphabetic.  Alphabetic writing systems are
based on phonemes, the basic units of sound that make up words.  Since
most languages have between 30 and 50 phonemes, it makes little sense to
talk about natural writing systems with infinite alphabets.  Logographic
writing systems, the least efficient type of writing, can have only as
many symbols as there are words (or morphemes) in the vocabulary.  If it
is necessary to carry on this discussion, why not debate the size of the
class of objects that written symbols map onto?