It was/is far easier to ensure redundancy of scripts and books since the costs of reprinting/copying was far lower compared to other forms of phonetic systems.
The compactness explains how so many archaic, buddhist scripts could survive to this day.
It was/is far easier to ensure redundancy of scripts and books since the costs of reprinting/copying was far lower compared to other forms of phonetic systems.
The compactness explains how so many archaic, buddhist scripts could survive to this day.
Could you elaborate on why the alphabetic system is intrinsically more efficient than Chinese characters in terms of recovering messages from partial loss of texts?
It's the same principle as how soldiers are trained to spread out when in battle: If they bunch up, it increases the risk that a single mortar shell (or artillery round or machine-gun burst) could take out a lot of troops.
Though I do not have data to back up my argument, I still reckon the Chinese glyphs/scriptures would have had a better chance of survival.
While I think your point is valid, its disadvantages outweigh the advantage, at least since paper/papyrus was invented.
Being spread out to double in length (double being an arbitrary multiplier) would still be inferior to being dispersed to two physical locations (redundancy). I think this is where don't put all your eggs in one basket holds true.
Plus, important docs must have been actively maintained by hired librarians(?). With human maintenance involved, less in volume could have been an advantage for it is easier to move around and maintain the docs. Ofc, when left out in the wild, it is a different story.
Personally I do not like Chinese character system as it has so high a barrier to entry for learners. I love alphabets, Korean Hangeul, or Japanese Hira/Katakana for this matter. Have you tried learning any of those? :-)
I'll try give an example: English: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
Chinese: 敏捷的棕毛狐狸从懶狗身上跃过
Classical Chinese: 棕色敏狐跃懶犬 Note: This is composed by me, maybe not very well-written, and maybe it can be even more compact, but you see what I mean ;)