Re: [PPLetterpress] Hardwired for Alphabets (or, ET write home!)
I read one of these reports about a week ago and wondered what would
constitute a non "natural" form to the researchers. Hasn't it been
assumed for some long time now that pictorial symbols, meant to
metaphorically represent natural forms, slowly evolved and abstracted
into the written forms of most surviving languages? Wouldn't the
limitations of implement and substrate also play a significant role in
the organic nature of written forms?
One of the reasons characters "possess the same shapes as they always
did" may very well be because the advent of mechanical technologies
halted further development in form.
There are, as well, certain common symbols, that have no natural form,
such as the chevron and other abstractions, that perceptual studies
indicate may be embedded (as a consequence of the wiring of the brain),
rather than learned.
But if Changizi's logic is to be followed, let's hope ET lives on a