--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Young-Key Kim-Renaud
<kimrenau@...> wrote:
> Dear Suzanne et others,
> Han'gul, in fact, can be written linearly. There have been
various experiments to linearize han'gul by Koreans in Korea
and those in Russia and the Soviet Union at the turn of the
century, when Koreans found themselves in a very low point of
their history, as part of a "reform" movement.
> Linear writing is called "p'uro ssugi (take apart and write)" in
contrast with the usual "moa ssugi (gather together and write)".
As far as Korean writing is concerned, writing linearly or in
syllable blocks is an orthographic issue, not a typological
question. That is why Korean writing is not a syllabary but an
alphabet. The fact that the proposal for linear writing did not
really go anywhere--in spite of the several orthographic reforms
Korean writing has undergone--demonstrates the efficiency of
writing in syllable blocks.
> Han'gul keyboards in a linear fashion. Because the
consonants and vowels are ordered within a syllable and not
scrambled in a box, proper syllable shapes are created as the
letters are typed in in sequence. Korean keyboards are
arranged logically and ergonomically--a lot easier to learn than
the English--because all the consonants are on the left side and
the vowels are on the right.
> The Korean alphabet is really easy to learn. It is worth investing
half a day of your life to learning it, especially if you are interested
in the typology of writing systems.

What you are saying is incredibly interesting. I love all that detail.
Who knows I may try Korean some day but my graduate
assistant uses Korean and the students are good at it so it
wasn't a problem. By the way, I do know who Insup Taylor is
(Scripts and Literacy?) and I don't know what the 'tyranny of the
alphabet' is. Best leave that alone. Okay, Korean is input in
sequence, but it doesn't display in linear blocks, so syllable
blocks work, right.
What if a language doesn't input in sequence but displays in an
out-of-sequence linear block, that is the problem. How do
children reconcile the keyboard input with the visual display? The
children have a visual image of a word already in their mind or
on paper. They also have a phonemic image but if the two
conflict in sequence then a syllable system was used to resolve
that. How can that be reflected in the system and at what level?
> Young-Key Kim-Renaud
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: suzmccarth <suzmccarth@...>
> Date: Monday, June 7, 2004 5:57 pm
> Subject: Re: functional classification of writing systems
> > No value judgements intended. Just this, When I present
> > multilingual computing to other teachers I would like to say
> >
> > 1. Some scripts have linear, sequenced blocks of letters and
> > have syllable blocks. (This way I do not have to use terms
> > syllabaries, alphabets and abugidas.) Normally the systems
> > linear blocks are in the first section of languages in language
> > support and work like a western alphabet.
> >
> > 2. There are systems with syllable blocks and they are on the
> > computer Asian languages, specifically CKJ.
> >
> > 3. Then I have to explain what "complex" means. I must make
> > meaningful... so I could say that (besides the bidi scripts, we
> > understand those) there are writing systems that are linear
> > not
> > sequenced by sound production. These systems are
> > arranged
> > into syllable blocks when they are taught to children on paper
> > on
> > the computer they are not composed in syllable blocks.
> >
> > Then when a teacher spells a word out loud to a child or
> > a
> > written model for the child to copy in that language the
> > has
> > to know that the child cannot use a linear system to keyboard
> > letters. (Unless, of course, I can download another system
> > what
> > is provided in Uniscribe.) That is a very significant difficulty.
> > Many children through the years copy an oral spelling or
> > model in a linear fashion to input their search word into
> > This truly does affect how children and the less literate
> > digital literacy.
> >
> > If there is no argument with this kind of vocabulay I will go
> > it. I must add that we have technology curriculum goals that
> > in
> > grade 1. This is not a hypothetical discussion for me.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: suzmccarth <suzmccarth@...>
> Date: Monday, June 7, 2004 6:50 pm
> Subject: Re: functional classification of writing systems
> > I have never heard of the "Tyranny of the Alphabet". I don't
> > to
> > argue about it at all. Haven't seen the book.
> >
> > Downloading a different keyboard system is probably not
> > I
> > have no idea.
> >
> > Teaching a child to keyboard in a non-linear fashion is
> >
> > Suzanne McCarthy