On 11/07/2001 04:49:25 PM "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:

>> 2. syllabic: structural units represent a phonological syllable
>> 2a. syllabary: no systematic relationship between shapes (e.g.
>> Hiragana)
>> 2b. abugida: regular relationship between shapes that corresponds to a
>> regular relationship between phonemes (e.g. Ethiopic, Cdn Syllabics)
>
>NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! These CANNOT be lumped together!!
Please explain your concern, keeping in mind thatI haven't lumped them together but have said they are variants of a class, and have provided a clearly defined basis for that class that follows a coherent model for all of the classes.


>> 3. alphasyllabary: two levels of structural unit representing phonemes
>> and syllables (prototypical example: Hangul)
>
>Well that's certainly not how Bright uses the term, and it's his word!
Well, I'd be interested in his thoughts on my taxonomic system, which I suggest is based on a more explicit and consistent model than I've seen used to now.


>There are no "ideographs" in Chinese!!!!!!!!!!!! (Even the numerals,
>which in most other scripts _are_ ideograms.)
I'm just using that term to indicate which kind of character I meant -- "Chinese characters" could mean bopomofo. If I had said "Han characters", some would jump on me for regarding the use of "Han". And "Chinese logosyllables" simply is not used.



>> I'm not familiar with Bell's visible speech, but I guess that would
>> represent another
>
>another logosyllabary??? not in the slightest!
No. Of course not. Another class of writing system, which is why I immediately followed that by a 5th class that used it as an example. Peter, methinks you're overreacting. :-)



>> 5. featural: structural units represent phonological features
>
>Bell's Visible Speech.
>
>> but Hangul would *not* be an example of this class of script.
>
>No one suggests it is.
Eh? Nobody has called Hangul a featural script? Which pages from WWS should I quote first?



>> Should we not be willing to see if we can improve upon what has been
>> given to us?
>
>Go ahead and try ... :-)
Well, I have. And rather than comment on the merits or demerits of the principles on which I based this system of classification, providing clear reasoning, you've simply made an assertion of invalidity on one aspect, and made some weak or unfounded complaints about details regarding examples I used.



- Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@...>