|
|
|
|
|
|
by qppo
1976 days ago
|
|
|
Phonetic alphabets tie the representation of information to human vocalization, which is only slightly more useful than tying it to human sight like pictographs. Without launching into a diatribe on all the shortcomings of phonetic alphabets for representing spoken language (for example speakers of the same language can't even agree on the same set of phonemes to use, and they shift over time) there are plenty of examples I can think of, like musical notation, signal flow graphs, type system notation, circuit diagrams, etc, which notate extraordinarily complex and compounded information into terse representations without terrible ambiguity and plenty of flexibility just like alphabets. Without the shortcomings of human language itself. I'd suggest those systems, many of which have been iterated and improved, more "advanced" than the humble alphabets. |
|
|
Yes, there are many specialized notations for specialized purposes. None are useful as a representation of human language. Phonetic alphabets are specialized for human language, and have proved superior to any other notation for that purpose.