# What written language conveys the most information with the least characters? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 3, 2007, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507 "2007-04-03T01:17:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/21 "2007-04-04T00:27:05Z")
[QUOTE=Quercus] I’m not sure I agree that your post has comparable font sizes, in relation to the OP. I don’t think it’s a valid comparison putting one very complex Chinese character (that needs to be distinguished from thousands of others) in the same width as one very simple roman letter. While I don’t read either the Chinese or Japanese scripts, it seems that one would have to look close and squint a little bit to read the ones you posted, while the roman-letter scripts are very clear and readable (on my fairly high res LCD screen at least). [/QUOTE] I can read both Japanese and Chinese, and I assure you both are quite readable. As a matter of fact, all the excerpts I posted are shown at default size. Look up any Chinese web page, and you’ll see the characters are displayed at about the same size. Here: [http://www.yahoo.co.jp](http://www.yahoo.co.jp) (Japanese) [http://cn.yahoo.com](http://cn.yahoo.com) (Chinese) The question in the OP was what language conveys the most information _per page_. Of course, Chinese characters have many more strokes than other writing systems. However, as far as _space_ is concerned, Chinese is the winner. I think it should be noted that Hangul (Korean) is also a very compact script, however, the grammar of Korean isn’t as concise as that of Chinese, so you probably end up with texts taking more space. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/22 "2007-04-04T00:39:30Z")
[QUOTE=psychonaut] No, because one could easily invent a script where all glyphs were single strokes of varying lengths and/or orientations. [/QUOTE] I think Monty (and everyone else on this thread) intends to discuss only actual, not merely possible, scripts. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/23 "2007-04-04T00:48:59Z")
If we use strokes as a unit, how do we deal with cursive scripts? ---
**Author:** ![Staggerlee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/staggerlee/32/3134_2.png) [@Staggerlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staggerlee)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/24 "2007-04-04T08:19:43Z")
[QUOTE=psychonaut] No, because one could easily invent a script where all glyphs were single strokes of varying lengths and/or orientations. [/QUOTE] Sorry to press the point, but doesn’t Ogham, the old Celtic script I mentioned in post #13, look like this? most of the ‘letters’ are small strokes crossing a central line. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/25 "2007-04-04T14:18:12Z")
How about an abjad? Hebrew might be up there, if you’re looking at languages with written _alphabets_ that will convey a lot of information in a little bit of space. Hebrew text: וַיְהִי כָל-הָאָרֶץ, שָׂפָה אֶחָת, וּדְבָרִים, אֲחָדִים. Roman transliteraton Vayehi khol-ha’arets safa ekhat udvarim akhadim. English Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. More Hebrew עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמָהּ, בָּבֶל, כִּי-שָׁם בָּלַל יְהוָה, שְׁפַת כָּל-הָאָרֶץ; וּמִשָּׁם הֱפִיצָם יְהוָה, עַל-פְּנֵי כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. More translisteration Al-ken kara shmah bavel ki-sham balal Adonai shefat kol-ha’arets umisham hefitsam Adonai al-pnei kol-ha’arets. English That is why it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/26 "2007-04-04T14:35:17Z")
[QUOTE=Staggerlee] Sorry to press the point, but doesn’t Ogham, the old Celtic script I mentioned in post #13, look like this? most of the ‘letters’ are small strokes crossing a central line. [/QUOTE] It looked to me like letters consisted in a series of strokes. So like, “A” might be three strokes, “B” four strokes, “C” two strokes, a loop, and a stroke, and so on. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/27 "2007-04-04T15:16:25Z")
I know that **elmwood** mentioned “abjads” when he brought up Hebrew, but it probably bears amplification. One of the things which helps reduce Hebrew is that the vowels aren’t represented, or only represented by the Masoretic points, which are optional (the excerpts above have them). They are not typically used in things like secular books and newspapers, as I understand it. It would compact the English, too, to write it like: Nw th whl wrld hd n lngg nd cmmn spch. Letting the reader puzzle out the intended vowels. Off course, it really wouldn’t work in English - too many words are disambiguated solely by their vowel sounds, and “a” and “I” are common words all by themselves. If you regard the Masoretic points as parts of the letters, the fact that they are so tiny in comparison to the rest of the letter limits practical font size, and adds strokes, if we’re using that for a measure. It’s hard to imagine shrinking the Hebrew text shown above much more without losing the points. For alphabetic representations, I might still favor Korean, because of the compactification from the syllable blocks. Of course, that does nothing to help the stroke count. ---
**Author:** ![Bambi\_Hassenpfeffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Bambi\_Hassenpfeffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bambi_Hassenpfeffer)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/28 "2007-04-04T16:32:21Z")
[QUOTE=Nava] Nope, my experience translating from Spanish to English and viceversa shows that, in general, the English version is shorter. I’ve been known to say “ohmyGod, I got a paragraph that’s _shorter in Spanish_!” and do a little victory dance. A lot of it is the verbs; many actions which in English can be expressed with a single (often short) word require a phrasal verb in Spanish. Another factor is the completely different phraseology. [/QUOTE] Yet again, **Nava** stole my post. I don’t translate for a living, but when I’m reading something in Spanish, it’s almost always longer than the same paragraph would be in English. And she’s right – our verb system features shorter verbs that don’t require differing conjugations in most persons, so we make up a lot of length there. On the other hand, Spanish makes up some of it by dropping pronouns and being spoken very, very quickly. I would venture to say that English is more compact when written, but Spanish takes less time to tell the same story out loud. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/29 "2007-04-04T16:46:33Z")
[QUOTE=Bambi Hassenpfeffer] Yet again, **Nava** stole my post. I don’t translate for a living, but when I’m reading something in Spanish, it’s almost always longer than the same paragraph would be in English. And she’s right – our verb system features shorter verbs that don’t require differing conjugations in most persons, so we make up a lot of length there. On the other hand, Spanish makes up some of it by dropping pronouns and being spoken very, very quickly. [/quote] I’ve done a number of bilingual books and exhibitions in English and Spanish, and the rule of thumb is that the Spanish will run about 25-30% longer. (Of course this depends on the subject and style, technical texts in Spanish being closer to the length in English than more literary ones.) This has to be taken into account in running parallel columns of text in the two languages. We generally put photos, tables, and other stuff into the English column to help equalize the texts. > [@](#): > > I would venture to say that English is more compact when written, but Spanish takes less time to tell the same story out loud. I don’t know about that, but even if it did Spanish-speakers almost never do. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/30 "2007-04-04T18:06:49Z")
A quick side question, if you don’t mind. I’m currently reading this thread on my work computer: a Windown XP system running Firefox 2.0.0.3. I’ve been messing with my character encoding and auto-detect settings for the last five minutes and I just can’t make any of these Chinese characters show up. The Hebrew shows up fine, but the Chinese characters are just a string of boxes. I’ve yet to check my Mac at home to see if it’s a Windows issue or a Firefox issue. Does anyone know how to set up Windows Firefox to show Chinese? ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/31 "2007-04-05T01:06:02Z")
[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat] Does anyone know how to set up Windows Firefox to show Chinese? [/QUOTE] On Windows, I you need to install Chinese and Japanese fonts on your system for the messages to display properly. I posted from a Mac, but verified the thread on Windows with Opera and it displayed fine. Out of curiosity, I compared another excerpt from the UDHR, this time with Chinese, and different phonetic systems: Chinese: > [@](#): > > 人 人 有 资 格 享 有 本 宣 言 所 载 的 一 切 权 利 和 自 由, 不 分 种 族、 肤 色、 性 别、 语 言、 宗 教、 政 治 或 其 他 见 解、 国 籍 或 社 会 出 身、 财 产、 出 生 或 其 他 身 分 等 任 何 区 别。并 且 不 得 因 一 人 所 属 的 国 家 或 领 土 的 政 治 的、 行 政 的 或 者 国 际 的 地 位 之 不 同 而 有 所 区 别, 无 论 该 领 土 是 独 立 领 土、 托 管 领 土、 非 自 治 领 土 或 者 处 于 其 他 任 何 主 权 受 限 制 的 情 况 之 下。 Arabic: > [@](#): > > لكل إنسان حق التمتع بكافة الحقوق والحريات الواردة في هذا الإعلان، دون أي تمييز، كالتمييز بسبب العنصر أو اللون أو الجنس أو اللغة أو الدين أو الرأي السياسي أو أي رأي آخر، أو الأصل الوطني أو الإجتماعي أو الثروة أو الميلاد أو أي وضع آخر، دون أية تفرقة بين الرجال والنساء.وفضلاً عما تقدم فلن يكون هناك أي تمييز أساسه الوضع السياسي أو القانوني أو الدولي لبلد أو البقعة التي ينتمي إليها الفرد سواء كان هذا البلد أو تلك البقعة مستقلاً أو تحت الوصاية أو غير متمتع بالحكم الذاتي أو كانت سيادته خاضعة لأي قيد من القيود Hebrew: > [@](#): > > כל אדם זכאי לזכויות ולחרויות שנקבעו בהכרזש זו ללא הפליה כלשהיא מטעמי גזע, צבע, מין, לשון, דח, דעה פוליטית או דעה בבעיות אחרות, בגלל מוצא לאומי או חברתי, קנין, לידה או מעמד אחר.גדולה מזו, לא יופלה אדם על פי מעמדה המדיני, על פי סמכותה או על פי מעמדה הבינלאומי של המדינה או הארץ שאליה הוא שייך, דין שהארץ היא עצמאית, ובין שהיא נתונה לנאמנות, בין שהיא נטולת שלטון עצמי ובין שריבונותה מוגבלת כל הגבלה אחרת. Korean: > [@](#): > > 모든 사람은 인종, 피부색, 성, 언어, 종교, 정치적 또는 기타의 견해, 민족적 또는 사회적 출신, 재산, 출생 또는 기타의 신분과 같은 어떠한 종류의 차별이 없이, 이 선언에 규정된 모든 권리와 자유를 향유할 자격이 있다 . 더 나아가 개인이 속한 국가 또는 영토가 독립국 , 신탁통치지역 , 비자치지역이거나 또는 주권에 대한 여타의 제약을 받느냐에 관계없이 , 그 국가 또는 영토의 정치적, 법적 또는 국제적 지위에 근거하여 차별이 있어서는 아니된다 . Spanish: > [@](#): > > Toda persona tiene los derechos y libertades proclamados en esta Declaración, sin distinción alguna de raza, color, sexo, idioma, religión, opinión política o de cualquier otra índole, origen nacional o social, posición económica, nacimiento o cualquier otra condición. Además, no se hará distinción alguna fundada en la condición política, jurídica o internacional del país o territorio de cuya jurisdicción dependa una persona, tanto si se trata de un país independiente, como de un territorio bajo administración fiduciaria, no autónomo o sometido a cualquier otra limitación de soberanía. Arabic hadn’t been mentioned so far. As a consonant alphabet, like Hebrew, it seemed likely to be fairly efficient. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/32 "2007-04-05T04:00:58Z")
If anything, Greenlandic probably conveys the least information with the most characters. Article 1 from the DHR: > [@](#): > > Inuit tamarmik inunngorput nammineersinnaassuseqarlutik assigiimmillu ataqqinassuseqarlutillu pisinnaatitaaffeqarlutik. Solaqassusermik tarnillu nalunngissusianik pilersugaapput, imminnullu iliorfigeqatigiittariaqaraluarput qatanngutigiittut peqatigiinnerup anersaavani. Matses is also long. > [@](#): > > Chidon tishaido yec matses abitedimbo bëdamboec isnanac bëdambo ictsiash. Chieshnanac icsambo ictsiash. Abitedimbo bëdamboec tabadac bëdambo ictsiash. Shubu abentsëcquidën tabadac birnboec abitedi tabadac bëdambo ictsiash - quequin chuipanëdash nidaid abitedinoësh cho-choquidon. In English: > [@](#): > > All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Latin seems nice and compact. > [@](#): > > Omnes homines dignitate et iure liberi et pares nascuntur, rationis et conscientiae participes sunt, quibus inter se concordiae studio est agendum. Mazahua is VERY compact. > [@](#): > > Texe yo nte’e chjetrjoji, angezeji ximi xo’oji ñeje k’inchiji, nesta ra ngara na jo’o k’o dyaja e nte’e. ---
**Author:** ![jamus\_se](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@jamus\_se](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jamus_se)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/33 "2007-04-05T05:29:49Z")
My language just encapsulated every single bit of information on the entire internet with this symbol: O|-\< I win. Seriously though, why is there extra spaces between each character for the Chinese translation of the HDR when most common Chinese web sites don’t employ that kind of formatting? Something is fishy here. 人 人 有 资 格 享 有 本 宣 言 所 载 should probably be shown as 人人有资格享有本宣言所载 and I can read both just fine, and to be honest I can read the bottom row faster because the odd spacing forces me to read the characters separately. ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/34 "2007-04-05T05:48:41Z")
[QUOTE=jamus\_se] Seriously though, why is there extra spaces between each character for the Chinese translation of the HDR when most common Chinese web sites don’t employ that kind of formatting? Something is fishy here. [/QUOTE] I c&p the texts from the UN’s site. I, too, thought the kerning was a bit wide, but completely failed to notice that it was an extra space causing it. Here’s Chinese vs. Arabic for article 2, with the spaces removed: > [@](#): > > 人人有资格享有本宣言所载的一切权利和自由,不分种族、肤色、性别、语言、宗教、政治或其他见解、国籍或社会出身、财产、出生或其他身分等任何区别。并且不得因一人所属的国家或领土的政治的、行政的或者国际的地位之不同而有所区别,无论该领土是独立领土、托管领土、非自治领土或者处于其他任何主权受限制的情况之下。 > [@](#): > > لكل إنسان حق التمتع بكافة الحقوق والحريات الواردة في هذا الإعلان، دون أي تمييز، كالتمييز بسبب العنصر أو اللون أو الجنس أو اللغة أو الدين أو الرأي السياسي أو أي رأي آخر، أو الأصل الوطني أو الإجتماعي أو الثروة أو الميلاد أو أي وضع آخر، دون أية تفرقة بين الرجال والنساء.وفضلاً عما تقدم فلن يكون هناك أي تمييز أساسه الوضع السياسي أو القانوني أو الدولي لبلد أو البقعة التي ينتمي إليها الفرد سواء كان هذا البلد أو تلك البقعة مستقلاً أو تحت الوصاية أو غير متمتع بالحكم الذاتي أو كانت سيادته خاضعة لأي قيد من القيود ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/35 "2007-04-05T11:58:47Z")
I think these are the two logical extremes: A picture is worth a thousand words. Or, more accurately, a well done painting or photograph can convey a great deal, albeit with ambiguity. If characters or ideographs or symbols can be carried to an extreme, let the picture be one character. For that matter, I read somewhere that we interpret written text in English a word at a time when we read, or even read some phrases without parsing the words per se. Not surprising - you read “you” so many times in a lifetime that you can easily recognize the shape of the word itself. So I think it’s arguable that many entire words are characters or symbols as written. At the other extreme, in a sense, the two dimensional barcodes that put a 1 or a 0 in each cell of a matrix represent either a very big number of characters (if each cell is a character) or a great deal of information in the character (if the entire barcode is a character). Moreover, file compression algorithms that reduce the information content into a nearly minimized number of bits make such barcodes maximally efficient in some sense. But the trouble with all of these is that raw information isn’t very useful. Hell, matter itself is made of information, something like 10^65 bits to the kilogram. It is only the way in which information resolves uncertainty that makes it useful. One lantern if by land, two if by sea, conveys volumes to the intended reader, and makes no sense to people having a different state of mind. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/36 "2007-04-05T16:56:57Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] Aren’t translations usually longer than the original text, regardless of what language it’s translated to and from? Or is a Chinese translation of an English novel actually thinner than the original? [/QUOTE] Usually yes. But Mrs. Seldon is a professional French to English translator and the English text invaiably comes out shorter, as much as 10% shorter, than the French. Translators going from English to French expect the text to grow, by up to 20%. On the other hand, French is spoken so much faster, often with syllables dropped (qu’est c’est que ca has fragments of eight words compressed into five syllables) that I suspect spoken French goes at least as fast as English. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/37 "2007-04-05T18:52:05Z")
I’ve heard that even **spoken** Chinese is more concise than most languages, because it relies on tone to make phonemic distinctions between similar words, most of which are of but one or two syllables. Is that true? ---
**Author:** ![b3tour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5e925/32.png) [@b3tour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/b3tour)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2007, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/38 "2007-04-06T00:16:59Z")
[QUOTE=Hari Seldon] On the other hand, French is spoken so much faster [/QUOTE] This phenomenon of “rate” in languages has come up earlier in the thread as well; I believe it’s probably false that syllable-timed languages are somehow faster than stress-timed languages. I can’t think just now of an easy way to confirm my suspicion, but from my own experience I have difficulty thinking of French, for example, as particularly “fast,” in relation to English. ---
**Author:** ![NoCoolUserName](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5fc32e/32.png) [@NoCoolUserName](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoCoolUserName)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2007, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/39 "2007-04-07T14:11:06Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I’ve heard that even **spoken** Chinese is more concise than most languages, because it relies on tone to make phonemic distinctions between similar words, most of which are of but one or two syllables. Is that true? [/QUOTE] Even with tones, there are fewer phonemes in Chinese. That means there are more two-syllable words to disambiguate. On the other hand, if the context is clear, you don’t need the extra syllables. I’m not a languages scholar, and this is not very clear. I’m sure someone will elaborate shortly. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2007, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507/40 "2007-04-07T15:18:50Z")
All else equal, fewest-words syntax structure gives compactness. Morphemic/ideatic symbology compacts better than phonemic. The above are awkward but validly constructed English sentences. They would be shorter in written Chinese (possibly spoken Chinese as well) and longer in any Romance language. German might shorten word count, but at the cost of more characters per phoneme ( Russian ч = English ch = German Tsch). Latin might compact them even better (_ceteris paribus_ for “Everything else being kept equal,” my “All else equal,” for example). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-written-language-conveys-the-most-information-with-the-least-characters/398507.md?page=3)