• Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The chinese kinda did just make a character for each word though.

    Modern chinese uses plenty of words with multiple characters but Old chinese didn’t really. So character = word was much closer to the truth around the time of the oracle bone inscriptions.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      OK, but if we’re talking about origins then the Latin script ultimately descends from Egyptian hieroglyphics, which were also originally pictographic, hence 1:1 symbol:word (but evolved and so were much more complicated than just pictographs when they stopped being used)

      • Hegar@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        At it’s origins, the Latin script was an alphabet, not 1:1 symbol to word.

        You have to go back through a chain of different scripts for different languages from different cultures that influenced it to get to heiroglyphs.

        Chinese characters were logograms invented for Chinese and are logograms used for Chinese today. At their origin they were pretty much symbol = word and it mostly still is.

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Logograms like Chinese characters are not 1:1 symbol to word; they stand for morphemes, not words. Some words are morphemes, but most words consist of more than one.

          Chinese script evolved from a pictographic script, just as the Latin script evolved from a pictographic script. You have to go through a chain in either case.