--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "John H. Jenkins" <jenkins@...> wrote:

>
> ©ó Jul 12, 2004 4:11 AM ®É¡AMichael Everson ´£¨ì¡G
>
> > At 21:31 -0400 2004-07-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> >> (a) We've been told that nothing will be changed no matter what
> >> anyone says;
> >
> > That isn't true.
> >
>
> Indeed. I believe the misunderstanding arose because I stated we
> cannot remove the term "ideograph" from the standard inasmuch as

it's

> in the name of some 70,000 characters and five blocks. The *text*

of

> the standard can be fixed. If there's evidence that linguists and
> sinologists have adopted one term in preference to all others,

we'll

> gladly substitute that in the text. Until then, we'll continue our
> current policy of using the word that everybody -- even non-

experts --

> understand, with appropriate explanations as to why it's considered
> incorrect.

I was talking to a Hong Kong professor of cognitive psychology and
literacy, Lorna Chan, and in conversation about early literacy she
said Chinese is "not phonetic" - it is "I'll think of the word -
ideographic." Then later she quoted C K Leung as using "logographic"
Both terms seemed equally acceptable to her.

BTW I went to the HKIEd. to see the Early Childhood Learning Centre.
(a model pre-school and kindergarte) The teachers are definately
using whole language methods "not phonetic" but they are encouraging
emergent literacy, contextual, communicative use of writing, much
more than rote memory. The writing was uneven and not perfect but
these were 4 - 5 year olds! It was truly amazing the level these
lttle kids were at with story writing and letters. Very authentic.

I truly think that the other language communities should have say in
the primary terminology used for their character set to make sure
that it is culturally sensitive.

Suzanne McCarthy

>
> ========
> John H. Jenkins
> jenkins@...
> jhjenkins@...
> http://homepage.mac.com/jhjenkins/