Alphabets and efficiency

[Darth Revan]

Writing and codes are an important source of knowledge, and may also come to define art and science to a great extent, seeing as the transmission of ideas is often a core aspect of both activities.

From the most important alphabets used on Earth, a recent survey ago deemed the Korean Hangul as the one having the highest degree of efficacy from all those considered.

The script has since evolved. Its syllabic blocks were first penned in vertical columns, but are now written from left to right, with Western spacing and punctuation. Four characters have become obsolete, so that just 24 are now used. But their simplicity—King Sejong assured his people that "a wise man can acquaint himself with them before the morning is over; a stupid man can learn them in the space of ten days”—is widely thought to have contributed to Korea’s exceptionally high literacy rate, in both North and South (where it is close to 100%). Advances in computing, some say, may also have been boosted by the ease with which Hangul can be entered into PCs and phones.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...ist-explains-7

The proposal that it may be one of the many reasons for improved literacy and technological development, is something that highlights how vital a proper code is to the communication of knowledge.

Regardless, it is hardly a settled matter and many questions are left to be made. What is your impression on this matter? Would you agree that Korean is the most efficient one? If not, do you have a different suggestion?

The word is yours.

[Darth Revan]

In what pertains to the Hangul, the system can be learnt quickly and there is little room for confusion as well. The following spreadsheet should illustrate why that is:

[Darth Revan]

Second part:

[Methmatician]

Sure. It looks nice too.

[Darth Revan]

Sure. It looks nice too.

Subjective value doesn't really matter. The real issue that should matter is what alphabet is the most efficient, and can effectively transpolate as many sounds and languages as possible without resorting to exceptions and ad-hoc arrangements. The latin alphabet and the high degree of variability that it displays across the different places and languages that make use of it, has certainly not fulfilled this role.

[kkk77]

It wouldn't work for all languages.

[Comte Arnau]

It wouldn't work for all languages.

Exactly. But it's true that it works well for Korean because it fits their syllable structures fairly well.

I always doubt about these "most efficient" languages/alphabets/etc because it always depends on a lot of subjective factors. That said, it's quite obvious that there are alphabets that just don't work for certain languages. The Arabic script works very well for a language like Arabic, but it sucked for Turkish, so it's just logical they eventually changed it. Even with the Latin one, they still have many diacritics, but a bit like many European languages. Actually, I'd say that very few languages have what would probably be the most efficient script for them, so that's why I always encourage those languages with a unique alphabet of theirs to continue with it.

[Darth Revan]

It wouldn't work for all languages.

Arguable, yes. But from the current alphabets at hand, it is the most efficient one. It would be important to work over it, to find a more comprehensive one.

[Dictator]

Arguable, yes. But from the current alphabets at hand, it is the most efficient one. It would be important to work over it, to find a more comprehensive one.

If I can’t write my name with it then it is not efficient.

[Leto]

Exactly. But it's true that it works well for Korean because it fits their syllable structures fairly well.

I always doubt about these "most efficient" languages/alphabets/etc because it always depends on a lot of subjective factors. That said, it's quite obvious that there are alphabets that just don't work for certain languages. The Arabic script works very well for a language like Arabic, but it sucked for Turkish, so it's just logical they eventually changed it. Even with the Latin one, they still have many diacritics, but a bit like many European languages. Actually, I'd say that very few languages have what would probably be the most efficient script for them, so that's why I always encourage those languages with a unique alphabet of theirs to continue with it.

I agree with you for the most part. I should also add that most alphabets were not chosen in the past because of their "cool look" or exceptional efficiency. Many of them were simply imposed as part of a cultural influence. It's obvious that the Arabic script doesn't suit Persian well, it was adopted many centuries ago when Persia was conquered by Arabs and it is still used in the 21st century, even though there are decent Romanization projects developed for the language.