> That argument can extend to any complicated system developed over hundreds and thousands of years. Off the top of my head, English Common Law is an example as well as English spelling and grammar.
True, and my point apply to those as well. However, even English pronunciation is not that bad and grammar is much easier than German or Latin or most Romance languages.
> Many of the characters you see in Chinese have a radical in the construct that indicates a sound. Unfortunately tone is not indicated.
Many, but not all (I think Japanese uses some of those hints as well). But if you have "character from some ancient text" that doesn't have that radical you're SOL.
> there is a way to type a Chinese character by radical assemblage. So even if you don't know how to pronounce it by pinyin, you can still retype it into an e-dictionary
True, and my point apply to those as well. However, even English pronunciation is not that bad and grammar is much easier than German or Latin or most Romance languages.
> Many of the characters you see in Chinese have a radical in the construct that indicates a sound. Unfortunately tone is not indicated.
Many, but not all (I think Japanese uses some of those hints as well). But if you have "character from some ancient text" that doesn't have that radical you're SOL.
> there is a way to type a Chinese character by radical assemblage. So even if you don't know how to pronounce it by pinyin, you can still retype it into an e-dictionary
Good to know