I remember reading an article about a Japanese man who held the record for memorizing up the thousandth digit of pi or whatever. The article continued to explain how Asian people in general could memorize more because each number in their languages tends to have a smaller amount of syllables. As in, numbers don't go "...seventy-one, seventy-two, etc." Rather they have a singular name, which takes up less space in their brains than how English and other languages tend to voice them, say seventy and addition of the seven that makes it seventy-seven, if that way of describing it makes any sense.
I was wondering if I could do that with words. Say, instead of necessarily making an alphabet, merely make characters that describe singular words themselves, with slight elaborations to indicate grammar. Would this be a good idea?

Intriguing idea, Cheyenne. I can sort of grasp what you're saying, but not exactly. Could you elaborate?

eru

As in, there are no letters. A word is not spelled out with letters. There are only symbols; typically one symbol would indicate one word, except in the case of say a compound word, in which two symbols (words) are combined. To indicate grammar, tenses, etc. would be universal additions to show the form of the word.

For instance, say "a" is a symbol and it means "to run." And "~" is an addition to a symbol (verb) that would basically add "-ing" and make the verb the present progressive. (Like in Spanish "hablar" would become "hablando.") So "a~" would be to mean "running."

Chinese uses the kind of word-symbols you are talking about. Look up the Chinese system, its very interesting.

However, I would personally caution against using this method. First of all, it's highly difficult for the less experienced con-langer, and second, it will be extremely inaccessible to your readers.

OK, now I get it. That does sound similar to Chinese. How extensive of a vocabulary could be created with, say, our alphabet? Or, how much grammar would be added on through auxiliary symbols?

eru

I'm not really sure what you mean by our alphabet and vocabulary.
With auxiliary symbols, each different one would indicate tense, present progressive, and the way in which something is stated. On paper, it would be a small written symbol, though spoken each one would have a different pronunciation or addition to the word.


And thank you for everyone who posted so far. Even if I'm not replying directly, I have read and appreciate your insight. This is the first time I'm attempting to make a language.

Sequoya ran into the same problem when he wrote down Cherokee. In the end he realized that it takes far to many symbols, that it's hard to remember and just easier to write in letters.
personally I also think it's easier to write with letters but that's just me.

Yeah, that's one of the problems I'm encountering...

You might consider a syllabary, where each symbol represents a syllable. This means you'll need a several hundred less symbols in the long run. It's especially nice for those word roots.

That's a pretty good idea. I might try that. Thanks.

Isn't a syllabary what Sequoya ended up using? Sort of a mix between an alphabet like English or word symbols like Chinese.

It sounds interesting, anyways

eru

Here are some links (I like links):

About writing systems:
http://omniglot.com/

A Consonantal Alphabet:
http://omniglot.com/writing/berber.htm

An Alphabet:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/georgian.htm

A Syllabic Alphabet:
http://omniglot.com/writing/ethiopic.htm

A Syllabary:
http://omniglot.com/writing/cypriot.htm


About Semanto-Phonetic Systems (I think this what you are thinking of):
http://omniglot.com/writing/semanto-phonetic.php

Chinese:
http://omniglot.com/writing/chinese.htm