suzmccarth wrote:

> The interest for me in Taylor's work is in providing an historical
> context for teaching method of Hangul. For some people it is
> definitely an abstract alphabet but for others possibly an
> alphasyllabary.

Under what possible definition of "alphasyllabary" does Hangul qualify?
(See WWS p. 4 n. *, and also Bill Bright's article published both in an
early issue of *Written Language and Literacy* and in the King Sejong
number of *Studies in the Linguistic Sciences* (Urbana).)

Hannas, a writer as reliable as Taylor, also describes the syllable-only
teaching of Hangul to first-graders; apparently they are expected to,
and do, figure out the construction of the syllable-blocks from letters
on their own after a few months.

But from a Korean bookstore in Chicago I got a babies' ABC book a long
time ago, and it did present the individual letters.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...