Non-Iconographic disadvantage doesn't make sense.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by scc

I've been interrupting Non-Iconographic as meaning if someone changed the font on you you wouldn't be able to tell what letters where which.

What you describe seems to be reportedly common as a result of being undereducated (people who can read Katakana-font but not Hiragana-font, or a print-font but not handwriting-font). But I don't think that has any relation to iconography.

[scc]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

What you describe seems to be reportedly common as a result of being undereducated (people who can read Katakana-font but not Hiragana-font, or a print-font but not handwriting-font). But I don't think that has any relation to iconography.

I'm thinking more changing between Times New Roman and Comic Sans and not be able to recognise that letters as being the same.

[whswhs]

Well, let me offer myself as an example. I can read text just fine; I know the Greek alphabet nearly as well as the Roman, and at different times in my life I've learned devanagari and hiragana well enough to read them phonetically. But emoji just baffle me. If you explain to me that ;-) represents someone winking I may be able to understand it, but such things are really hard for me to retain (I cite that one because I've actually run into it enough so that I know it without looking it up!); and when I run into a new one it mostly just baffles me, to the point where I tune out emoji in a text as "gibberish" without even trying to read them. I may not even pay attention to whether they're there.

I think what makes the difference is that romaji, say, is a code for speech sounds, and I can distinguish speech sounds and reproduce them. But emoji stands for—I can't say "is a code for," because it's not arbitrary the way letters are arbitrary—emoji stands for facial expressions, and I can't see the pattern from which the emoji is an abstraction. I'm not good at picking up actual facial expressions, either.

I don't think this exactly fits "Non-Iconographic," but some of the difficulties seem to be akin.

(On the other hand, I can make perfect sense of a wiring diagram, so go figure.)

[maximara]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Letters aren't abstract iconography, they're essentially somewhat-defective* phonography. There is an issue with Non-Iconographic: that it doesn't prohibit literacy with iconographic scripts (and conversely, that Dyslexia doesn't allow learning iconographic scripts), but that's a not quite the same as what you're objecting to.

* == Level of defectiveness can range from 'shockingly' to 'very slightly', depending on orthographic depth: contrast English, Russian and French vs. Spanish, Esperanto and Ukrainian.

Actually it is part of what I am objecting to as that is covered in sfdebris The Language of Darmok along with the whole letters are effectively iconographics for certain sounds (and not very consistent about it). I should point out that Egyptian hieroglyphs are (most of the time) are also phonograph even though there were many who thought they were iconographic.

Linguistical drift is another issue as seen with how Shakespeare's English differs in spelling and pronunciation from what is used today.

Abbreviations are another form of iconographicy. For example, "AAA" can mean the American Automobile Association, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, and several other things. It all depends on context.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by maximara

Actually it is part of what I am objecting to as that is covered in sfdebris The Language of Darmok along with the whole letters are effectively iconographics for certain sounds (and not very consistent about it).

I should point out that Egyptian hieroglyphs are (most of the time) are also phonograph even though there were many who thought they were iconographic.

Linguistical drift is another issue as seen with how Shakespeare's English differs in spelling and pronunciation from what is used today.

Abbreviations are another form of iconographicy. For example, "AAA" can mean the American Automobile Association, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, and several other things. It all depends on context.

They're not iconographics (alternatively: not ideographics), they're phonographics. They're not representative of concepts nor ideas nor creatures, but of sounds. You're conflating the two.

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

So how would you houserule Non-Iconographic and Dyslexia to distinguish between ideographic and phonographic scripts?

[maximara]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

They're not iconographics (alternatively: not ideographics), they're phonographics. They're not representative of concepts nor ideas nor creatures, but of sounds. You're conflating the two.

ideogram: a picture or symbol used in a system of writing to represent a thing or an idea but not a particular word or phrase for it. (webster online)

A character symbolizing the idea of a thing without indicating the sounds used to say it. Examples include numerals and Chinese characters. (Oxford)

"&" was once a letter in English (19th century) but it was regarded as a word ("and"). Yet it is a symbol.

So is "&" iconographic or phonographic by Webster? Is it the same thing by Oxford?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by maximara

ideogram: a picture or symbol used in a system of writing to represent a thing or an idea but not a particular word or phrase for it. (webster online)

The scholarly volume The World's Writing Systems, which I have owned for some time, denies the concept of "ideogram" in writing, saying that the characters in question are more accurately called "logograms," as they stand for words, not for abstract ideas. Since this is from a major scholarly press and is the most comprehensive book on the subject I know of, I'm inclined to think there judgment may have good standing.

[Anthony]

pictograms are arguably the written equivalent of gesture, rather than a specific language, though unlike gesture it's likely to have meaningful side effects being bad at it.

Incidentally, is there a way to represent competency/incompetency with special purpose languages, grammars, and symbols -- e.g. programming languages, or mathematical notations? Just low levels with the root skill?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by whswhs

...
I think what makes the difference is that romaji, say, is a code for speech sounds, and I can distinguish speech sounds and reproduce them. But emoji stands for—I can't say "is a code for," because it's not arbitrary the way letters are arbitrary—emoji stands for facial expressions, and I can't see the pattern from which the emoji is an abstraction. I'm not good at picking up actual facial expressions, either.

I don't think this exactly fits "Non-Iconographic," but some of the difficulties seem to be akin.

(On the other hand, I can make perfect sense of a wiring diagram, so go figure.)

That is fascinating. I have an almost opposite issue. I couldn't really recognize facial expressions until I was 20, but never had an issue with emojis. They always seemed so much clearer and less individualized than actual human expressions.

I had to consciously determine expression piecemeal such as happy smiles are mouth corners turned up evenly with eyes squinted down. Otherwise all the natural variations in faces would screw me up.

I have since internalized it to a kind of second nature. In Gurps terms, I'd say I bought off the disadvantage.