suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > Luciano Perondi (molotro) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> - there are only phonological and morphological
> > > > >> elements and a syllabic/phonemic continuum.
> > > > >
> > > > > I cannot see any "morphological elements" in English
> spelling (apart
> > > > > perhaps
> > > > > word spacing and capital letters -- but these elements are
> certainly
> > > > > not
> > > > > unique to English).
>
> What is meant by the term morphophonemic? Does it not refer to
> English? - site/sight to distinguish homophones or no/know. I
> cannot agree that this is only historic because teens instant
> messaging now use no/noe to disambiguate, a new non-historic
> morphemic differentiation. What about the bound morpheme -ed used
> for /t/ or /@d/ or /d/. Isn't that a set spelling to represent past
> tense. How was the term quasi-logographic intended earlier?
>
> (Of course, I could not observe those who have Cherokee as their
> first language of literacy. However, Tamil and Cree are called neo-
> syllabaries by the French. Maybe that term is descriptive.)

Sorry, but where does "morphophonemic" come up in the thread you've
quoted?

It has nothing to do with orthography; it refers to interactions between
phonology and morphology.

What do you mean by "bound morpheme"?

The morpheme {PAST} is realized in those three different ways after
particular final sounds on verbs, parallel to the way {3SG} is realized
in comparable environments.

Which "French" use the term "neosyllabary"?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...