[mostlylurks]

> First, words aren’t really related to sound.

No, but they are related to a naturally occurring medium of language, of which there are only two notable ones: the human voice, and signing. Written languages are simply codified representations of these forms of natural language. (Note: Sign languages are distinct unrelated languages from the local spoken languages with their own grammar and everything, not just signed representations of them.)

By using written language, you are merely encoding a representation of a spoken phrase into a graphical representation. This is what truly makes writing separate from other commonplace but more abstract symbols, such as arrows, crosses, checkmarks, bathroom/restaurant/exit indicators, warning signs, etc, which convey an idea quite effectively but do not have a clear reliable decoding into natural language (i.e. if you ask 100 people to explain what they indicate, you won't be given the exact same sentence 100 times).

[rcme]

> By using written language, you are merely encoding a representation of a spoken phrase into a graphical representation.

I would argue the opposite. Language is an encoding of ideas. By speaking, we are merely using an auditory representation of a word and when we write we use a graphical representation of a word, but the word is entirely separate from both audible and graphical representation. And indeed, we see that we can create other representations of a word. We can create a mathematical representation, like in the case of LLMs, and use words in a way that is entirely separate from sound and visuals. As a species, we used sound to invent words, but the invention isn’t tied to sound in any way. If we, as a species, evolved further and lost our vocal cords and ears, we could still use words. We could also continue to use words if we lost our sight as well. Truly words are separate from our senses.

[Retric]

That’s not how language works, people still use sounds and gesticulations not just words. If we lost the ability to speak we might abandon words entirely for something else.

Buzz, growl, etc are obvious example where sound directly influenced what the word was and how it’s written. But the ability for kids to form specific sounds also influenced words like mom. The same is true of world complexity, natural languages always have some imperatives like stop and go that are short and simple rather than long complex utterances like sesquipedalian.

Further, comparisons between languages suggest that words evolved from sounds. “No” for example sounds similar in a shocking number of languages from Afro-Eurasia and the America’s despite very long term separation.

[rcme]

We might abandon words for something else, but we wouldn’t need to abandon words because they could continue to work without sounds. That’s because words are a totally distinct concept from sounds.

It’s super ironic to talk about how sounds and gestures are a part of language while using purely written communication to talk. We will never hear each other. You will never see my gestures. And yet…

[Retric]

It’s possible to communicate in words alone just as it’s possible to communicate non verbally, but misunderstanding increases. The written word is a poor subset of language not a 1:1 mapping of tone and cadence.

As to abandoning words, we might abandon them for something better. When people use a whiteboard they tend to draw a great deal rather than simply writing words down. If we eventually move to say brain machine interfaces we could be sending more nuanced thoughts than words allow. Subtle degrees of emotion and perception that the written word simply can’t convey. The old a picture is worth a 1,000 words but taken even further to the point where the use of words atrophy and eventually disappear.