I want to understand better the split between logographic and phonemic writing systems. As far as i know logographicnlanguages in the modern world are all asian and of a similar character. So id imagine they all have the same roots.

@freemo Roots of the language and of the writing system are not necessarily the same. There were multiple instances of significant import of "characters" from ~Chinese into Japanese and I had the impression that at least some of them didn't import much past the characters themselves.

@robryk @freemo Indeed, the Japanese imported their writing system from the Chinese although the languages are not related. Also the phonetic symbols (Hiragana and Katakana) are said to be simplified Kanji. The Koreans used the Chinese symbols as well but also simplified them.

@digastricus @robryk

Id love to ubderstand how that developed. Importing a writing system but not a language only seems possible at all with logograms which is kinda cool.

@freemo @digastricus

Huh? Isn't that the case with all languages that use Latin alphabet but aren't romance?

@robryk

No, letters arent a writi g system a writing system would be the meaning of the words, the grammer, everything but the sounds.

In logographic languages the same or similar symbol has entierly different spoken words attached to it but the symbol would mean the same.

In a phonographic language that cant be possible since the letters represent soubds so the spoken language is explicitly linked to the written.

@digastricus

@freemo @digastricus

Then Japan didn't really acquire the writing system from China. The grammar is iiuc very different, and at some points in history characters were imported for the pronunciation, ignoring their meaning.