On 10/29/2001 04:12:38 AM "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:

>None of this looks familiar -- was it a qalam thread?

No, a Unicode thread that should have been a qalam thread, except that some of the principal participants aren't part of qalam.

>> In reading my friend's thesis, I was reminded of DeFrancis' argument
>> that writing systems can represent language only on the levels of the
>> syllable or the phoneme. It struck me then that Hangul is a
>> prototypical alphasyllabary.
>Not according to Bright's definition (or my definition of "abugida").

Perhaps not, but that seems to make sense: alphabets are defined in terms of the structural units of the writing corresponding to items basically at the phonemic level of phonology, while syllabaries are defined in terms of the structural units of the writing corresponding to items at the level of the syllable in the phonology. Well, Hangul has structural units that correspond to the phonology at both levels. Hence, my conclusion that if there is anything that would be appropriate to call an "alphasyllabary", Hangul is it.

>> I find some other interesting aspects to this. Daniels and others
>> argued that study of writing systems needs to examine, and only needs
>> to examine, the relationship between written symbols and the
>Where did the "only" come from?

Perhaps (apparently) I misinterpreted your position.

>Who espouses such an "earlier" view? Certainly not Gelb or A. A. Hill or
>Voegelin & Voegelin, whose work (referenced in WWS) represents the
>structuralist tradition.

From what I have just read, apparently Pulgram (1951) and Bazell (1956). Herrick was also mentioned, but his publications don't count as "earlier".

>> DeFrancis argues that writing systems should be distinguished
>> according to the basic units that they relate to rather than precisely
>> what each written unit represents. I think there's no question that
>> jamos represent language on the level of the phoneme. There is an
>> orthogonal characterisation of writing systems, discussed by Sproat
>> and I'd expect earlier by others, as to how concrete or abstract the
>> relationships between written forms and the linguistic forms they
>> represent...
>Careful you don't start on the slippery slope of "grapheme"!

How has this been at risk of that?

- 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@...>