Peter_Constable@... wrote:

>
> 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.

Could you not post in html? It's so tiny as to be nearly unreadable.

> >> 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.

And "featural" is defined in terms of the structural units of the
writing corresponding to items basically at the featural level.

Nu?

> >> 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".

Oh. European structuralism.

Herrick claims to be a Lambist and/or a tagmemicist.

> >> 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?

You're skirting the edge of -eme ...
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...