Kseniia, I've a question.
Do you think that in most cases composition of a character lets a Chinese child guess the meaning of an unfamiliar character (say, 2873th in frequency)?
If yes, then it is interesting. Even then Chinese is more complex than a syllabary. Do Chinese or English speakers have 2, 3, 5 times more difficulty when reading compared to "phonetical" Belorussian speakers? Maybe just 1.5 times?
The problem is that linguists take very enthusiastically arguments like "this system matches a certain structure in the langauge".
Great, but it is not science. Great that they've found structure. Great that the system matches it. Now why do you think it makes it "better"? Because you love structures?
Other arguments are
- "easier for kids to learn" (but it is not the same as the best tool for adults to use and please, prove scientifically the assertion about kids).
- redundancy of effort when writing (-ъ), but I don't know which side-effects this еръ could have when reading.