I don’t know about a lot of those points. I can read French quite well, but can’t speak it for shit, I don’t know how much I have to “convert” in my head since its phonetics are irrelevant to me (and as English became a main online language, tons of people everywhere in the world can read and write it, but not really speak it since we are all communicating primarily through text - my English pronunciation sucks btw)… but anyway, about stability and adaptation, China has 120k+ different characters in its language, the vast majority got out of use because other ways to write the same thing became more popular, so I don’t think it works like you described.
Have you ever heard about Paulo Freire? The guy developed a very interesting literacy method, he tested it out with adult rural workers from poor regions and in just 2 months he was able to get those people to read and write (even if with grammatical mistakes) because his method is phonetic (well, there’s quite more to it, but the reading/writing part is phonetic). For learning to read/write other languages, the “no sounding out” might be an advantage (like a lot of netizens writing in English without really speaking it), but for your own language, well, from what I understand they expect that only by high school the kids in Japan and China should be able to read their local newspaper because of the amount of characters they need to know for it, meanwhile Paulo Freire got adults, who have very low mental plasticity, able to do it in 2 months… phonetics and alphabets ftw :P
edit: We both know we are talking about Chinese and Japanese when talking about logograms, so great for them they have the same root and symbols have the same meaning even when sounding different. If there were other languages using logograms but with different roots, the positive point of symbols having the same meaning wouldn’t hold. But something happened with the Koreans that made them break away and build from scratch what seems to be the best and most logical writing system around.
I don’t know about a lot of those points. I can read French quite well, but can’t speak it for shit, I don’t know how much I have to “convert” in my head since its phonetics are irrelevant to me (and as English became a main online language, tons of people everywhere in the world can read and write it, but not really speak it since we are all communicating primarily through text - my English pronunciation sucks btw)… but anyway, about stability and adaptation, China has 120k+ different characters in its language, the vast majority got out of use because other ways to write the same thing became more popular, so I don’t think it works like you described.
Have you ever heard about Paulo Freire? The guy developed a very interesting literacy method, he tested it out with adult rural workers from poor regions and in just 2 months he was able to get those people to read and write (even if with grammatical mistakes) because his method is phonetic (well, there’s quite more to it, but the reading/writing part is phonetic). For learning to read/write other languages, the “no sounding out” might be an advantage (like a lot of netizens writing in English without really speaking it), but for your own language, well, from what I understand they expect that only by high school the kids in Japan and China should be able to read their local newspaper because of the amount of characters they need to know for it, meanwhile Paulo Freire got adults, who have very low mental plasticity, able to do it in 2 months… phonetics and alphabets ftw :P
edit: We both know we are talking about Chinese and Japanese when talking about logograms, so great for them they have the same root and symbols have the same meaning even when sounding different. If there were other languages using logograms but with different roots, the positive point of symbols having the same meaning wouldn’t hold. But something happened with the Koreans that made them break away and build from scratch what seems to be the best and most logical writing system around.