Howcananyonearguethatwhitespacehasnosemanticsignificance?
Just because you don't completely destroy the message by eliminating whitespace doesn't mean that the whitespace wasn't semantically significant.
[UPDATE] Whitespace is actually a pretty modern innovation, and it is not universal. In old manuscripts the text is often allframmedtogetherlikethis. Also, even in modern German it is common to compose verylongcompoundwords.
Back around 2006, there was an internal collection of quotes from senior Google engineers. There was one from a guy working on a particularly thorny issue with Russian search. He had just finished a project on Thai segmentation, and his response to how things were going with Russian was something like "Great! At least they have words!" (Obviously, he was being deliberately imprecise and understood that obviously Thai has words, just not whitespace-delimited.)
On a side note, the Korean alphabet is well-designed. In particular, teaching children syllabification rules is trivial. Syllables are pre-arranged into squares. Unfortunately, the lack of distinction between r-l, and p-b-f, and restrictions on consonant clusters makes it unworkable as a replacement alphabet for English.
A better example would be modern Hebrew. It has vowels, but they are an optional annotation and often omitted as a matter of course.
Doesn't that undercut yours?
Here "Isit?" means "Is it?" and that is obvious from the context.
It inspired me to come up with:
Fromwhereisitgoodideascome?
illtaketherapistsfortwohundred :-)