>>154551In a sense, yes, every dimension added to language, as obtuse as it may be, also expands your possibilities for wordplay, so that I agree with. However,
>And how "Chinese" can serve as a written language to dozens of mutually-unintelligible spoken tongues.Written vernacular Chinese is based on Mandarin, and taught even to people who speak entirely different languages. If you look at Cantonese writing, you can see they have to use some fairly unsightly runes for basic stuff, like 嘅, 啲, or 嘢. Utterly hideous and some of the most unwieldy shit I've seen in my entire life, yet it happens a lot for all forms of Chinese that depart from Mandarin. It also gets screwy when it comes to simplifications touching the phonetic aspect of compositions, because each variety has its own story of phonetic shifts and so correspondences are different. Meanwhile, a phonetic system uses exponentially less units for a wider range of phonetic combinations with more accuracy and flexibility, which is why the vast majority of humanity for the last few thousand years has preferred those. Very few ever reach the level of terribleness associated with English, and the conditions leading up to it would've fucked up any system imaginable.