5 ms·

Another interesting side-effect that the compactness of Chinese symbols (other variations: Hanja in Korean, Kanji in Japanese and so forth) allowed was a higher

Another interesting side-effect that the compactness of Chinese symbols (other variations: Hanja in Korean, Kanji in Japanese and so forth) allowed was a higher chance of survival against natural disasters like wild fires or crimes like thefts or vandalism. It was/is far easier to ensure redundancy of scripts and books since the costs of reprinting/copying was far lower compared to other forms of phonetic systems. The compactness explains how so many archaic, buddhist scripts could survive to this day.

edwinyzh 10y ago
Anybody care to explain why "costs of reprinting/copying was far lower compared to other forms of phonetic systems"? I know nothing about printing technology but I'm a Chinese.
- gkya 10y ago
  Far many more symbols are required to represent a word with alphabetical systems. I used 65 symbols and 11 spaces to write this sentence whereas with ideograms I'd need about 13 symbols.
  - edwinyzh 10y ago
    OIC, To express the same meaning, using Chinese needs far more less physical space than using English. And you know what? Classical Chinese takes the compactness to the next level ;D I'll try give an example: English: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Chinese: 敏捷的棕毛狐狸从懶狗身上跃过 Classical Chinese：棕色敏狐跃懶犬 Note: This is composed by me, maybe not very well-written, and maybe it can be even more compact, but you see what I mean ;)
dctoedt 10y ago
A counterpoint: When a message is written with an alphabet, it's not as compact, but its meaning can be guessed at even if significant portions of the message are missing (known as lacunae). See, e.g., the TV game show Wheel of Fortune; another example is the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts that have deteriorated over time.
- dhfromkorea 10y ago
  That may be true. And perhaps the same argument could be made for Chinese characters? Could you elaborate on why the alphabetic system is intrinsically more efficient than Chinese characters in terms of recovering messages from partial loss of texts?
  - dctoedt 10y ago
    Spatial dispersal of the glyphs means that fewer glyphs would be taken out by any given insect-gnawed hole, UV-radiation fading, hurled paint glob, etc., and thus less of the overall message would be lost to that single incident of damage. It's the same principle as how soldiers are trained to spread out when in battle: If they bunch up, it increases the risk that a single mortar shell (or artillery round or machine-gun burst) could take out a lot of troops.
    - dhfromkorea 10y ago
      Oh, now I see. Thank you for explaining your point succinctly. Though I do not have data to back up my argument, I still reckon the Chinese glyphs/scriptures would have had a better chance of survival. While I think your point is valid, its disadvantages outweigh the advantage, at least since paper/papyrus was invented. Being spread out to double in length (double being an arbitrary multiplier) would still be inferior to being dispersed to two physical locations (redundancy). I think this is where don't put all your eggs in one basket holds true. Plus, important docs must have been actively maintained by hired librarians(?). With human maintenance involved, less in volume could have been an advantage for it is easier to move around and maintain the docs. Ofc, when left out in the wild, it is a different story. Personally I do not like Chinese character system as it has so high a barrier to entry for learners. I love alphabets, Korean Hangeul, or Japanese Hira/Katakana for this matter. Have you tried learning any of those? :-)

edwinyzh 10y ago

Anybody care to explain why "costs of reprinting/copying was far lower compared to other forms of phonetic systems"? I know nothing about printing technology but I'm a Chinese.

gkya 10y ago
Far many more symbols are required to represent a word with alphabetical systems. I used 65 symbols and 11 spaces to write this sentence whereas with ideograms I'd need about 13 symbols.
- edwinyzh 10y ago
  OIC, To express the same meaning, using Chinese needs far more less physical space than using English. And you know what? Classical Chinese takes the compactness to the next level ;D I'll try give an example: English: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Chinese: 敏捷的棕毛狐狸从懶狗身上跃过 Classical Chinese：棕色敏狐跃懶犬 Note: This is composed by me, maybe not very well-written, and maybe it can be even more compact, but you see what I mean ;)

dctoedt 10y ago

A counterpoint: When a message is written with an alphabet, it's not as compact, but its meaning can be guessed at even if significant portions of the message are missing (known as lacunae). See, e.g., the TV game show Wheel of Fortune; another example is the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts that have deteriorated over time.

dhfromkorea 10y ago
That may be true. And perhaps the same argument could be made for Chinese characters? Could you elaborate on why the alphabetic system is intrinsically more efficient than Chinese characters in terms of recovering messages from partial loss of texts?
- dctoedt 10y ago
  Spatial dispersal of the glyphs means that fewer glyphs would be taken out by any given insect-gnawed hole, UV-radiation fading, hurled paint glob, etc., and thus less of the overall message would be lost to that single incident of damage. It's the same principle as how soldiers are trained to spread out when in battle: If they bunch up, it increases the risk that a single mortar shell (or artillery round or machine-gun burst) could take out a lot of troops.
  - dhfromkorea 10y ago
    Oh, now I see. Thank you for explaining your point succinctly. Though I do not have data to back up my argument, I still reckon the Chinese glyphs/scriptures would have had a better chance of survival. While I think your point is valid, its disadvantages outweigh the advantage, at least since paper/papyrus was invented. Being spread out to double in length (double being an arbitrary multiplier) would still be inferior to being dispersed to two physical locations (redundancy). I think this is where don't put all your eggs in one basket holds true. Plus, important docs must have been actively maintained by hired librarians(?). With human maintenance involved, less in volume could have been an advantage for it is easier to move around and maintain the docs. Ofc, when left out in the wild, it is a different story. Personally I do not like Chinese character system as it has so high a barrier to entry for learners. I love alphabets, Korean Hangeul, or Japanese Hira/Katakana for this matter. Have you tried learning any of those? :-)