Thanks first and foremost for your clear and friendly reply.
The reason I said this is that in my opinion all that have tried making a (20) number peg list for children have failed in my opinion. You are bound to run into problems no matter how smart or creative you are. It is not meant in any shape or form as criticism of your efforts.
You hit the hammer on nail by saying “some merits”; that is what in my opinion all shape based 2 digit mnemonic systems result in, some good images, some mediocre and some really far fetched ones.
Let me just give one example of why I thought as described above. I mentioned that in my opinion the snail doesn’t look like number 2, so I showed an image with a seahorse (with a chain) that in all fairness does look quite a lot like a 2. It appeared to me that you didn’t want to acknowledge my point in this matter.
You have provided some valuable insights to this topic, so I fail to see why the deletion of all your comments barring your last one?
I sometimes delete comments for a variety of reasons. Let me give you one example that perhaps you and other forum members may find interesting. I reacted to a video posted by Josh: “The World’s Fittest 100-Year-Old”. My reaction was basically a review of the video with lot’s of well articulated “this is complete nonsense” points of criticism. I made a similar reaction post to Two Reasons NOT to Copy Memory Athletes and I quickly received a whole bunch of likes.
In contrast to the above post nobody was interested in my review of the 100 year old person video. I took it as an insult that Josh, who had posted the video, didn’t even acknowledge my contribution to his thread. So my sense of honor basically motivated me to delete my part of that thread.
If a discussion is not going anywhere worthwhile for whatever reason like I felt in this thread, I am inclined to delete all of my contributions to it. I don’t see much value in keeping parts of the discussion as the beginning of the discussion was mostly an exchange of jokes and funny pictures (I hope you liked my Sesame Street images) that doesn’t serve much purpose for people viewing this thread in the future.
I attempted to show you where I had points of differences in a mature-like fashion imho? In wanting the understand the reasoning behind my ideas, I may have been a little verbose.
The 58 word counting sentence I gave as an example is in my view completely incomprehensible.
I very much doubt that any system be it a Phonetic Major System or a system that is solely based on direct transcription of letters to numbers and visa versa (such as the one you are showing) and is not dependent upon the sound that letters make as such themselves, would ever be able to be coded UNIVERSALLY?
Let’s make a shorter version of it.
I very much doubt that any system … would ever be able to be coded UNIVERSALLY?
The first part suggest that you are making a claim about all possible systems, just like in the sentence:
I very much doubt that any current boxer, be it the powerful Deontay Wilder or the tall and super smart Tyson Fury, would ever be able to defeat a prime Mike Tyson.
This raises the question why you would give a Major and Dominique System tutorial in the middle of a sentence that makes a statement about all mnemonic systems.
I honestly don’t even know what the last part “would ever be able to be coded UNIVERSALLY” means. I understand that a sequence of numbers can be coded (meaning “translated”) as a sequence of images, but what does it mean for a system itself to be coded?
Tim appeared to be reacting to your sentence when he said:
I agree that a phonetic system definitely wouldn’t be universal.
It seems that he doesn’t interpret your sentence as “all systems … would not be able to …”. Instead, he appears to have summarized the sentence for himself as “All phonetic systems would not be able to …”. This is however in my opinion not what it means according to normal language rules (see my Mike Tyson sentence). Notice how he presumably thinks, as I do, that both the Dominique and Major System are phonetic systems (as opposed to shape based systems).
In the above text I am already showing a potential problem with the use of the word phonetic as a way of differentiating between mnemonic systems. With this in mind let’s look at the middle part of the sentence.
or a system that is solely based on direct transcription of letters to numbers and vice versa (such as the one you are showing) and is not dependent upon the sound that letters make as such themselves.
The goal of mnemonic number systems is to be able to memorize numbers by means of translating them into something more memorable.
Your "based on direct transcription of letters to number” 'suggests the opposite of that goal. Anyone who is not already familiar with for example the Dominique system will think you implied that the entire alphabet can be translated as numbers and that is the point of the system, which is obviously not the case.
The “and is not dependent upon the sound that letters make as such themselves” raises many questions. I truly don’t understand what the added value is of this part of the sentence; everybody knows that letters are basically phonetic symbols and that some letters may have different sounds attributed to them according to the words they are a part of.
Let me just finish with one more example of something that annoys me greatly (sorry for being honest) when I read it.
Sounds are of utmost importance in the Major System which is a phonetically based system.
I don’t know where to begin with articulating my disbelief regarding this sentence. Why are you explaining something that the participants in the discussion (most notably me and Tim) already know? What is the bloody point (pardon my French) of stating that “X is very important for something that is based on X”.
I appreciate that, but it’s not worth the trouble.
Thanks again for your friendly response.