Peter_Constable@... wrote:
> On 11/07/2001 04:49:25 PM "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >> 2. syllabic: structural units represent a phonological syllable
> >> 2a. syllabary: no systematic relationship between shapes (e.g.
> >> Hiragana)
> >> 2b. abugida: regular relationship between shapes that corresponds
> to a
> >> regular relationship between phonemes (e.g. Ethiopic, Cdn
> Syllabics)
> >
> >NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! These CANNOT be lumped together!!
> Please explain your concern, keeping in mind thatI haven't lumped them
> together but have said they are variants of a class, and have provided
> a clearly defined basis for that class that follows a coherent model
> for all of the classes.

If you know my words for them, then you also know my reasons for keeping
them far, far apart.

> >> 3. alphasyllabary: two levels of structural unit representing
> phonemes
> >> and syllables (prototypical example: Hangul)
> >
> >Well that's certainly not how Bright uses the term, and it's his
> word!
> Well, I'd be interested in his thoughts on my taxonomic system, which
> I suggest is based on a more explicit and consistent model than I've
> seen used to now.

He's reading this right now.

> >There are no "ideographs" in Chinese!!!!!!!!!!!! (Even the numerals,
> >which in most other scripts _are_ ideograms.)
> I'm just using that term to indicate which kind of character I meant
> -- "Chinese characters" could mean bopomofo. If I had said "Han
> characters", some would jump on me for regarding the use of "Han". And
> "Chinese logosyllables" simply is not used.

No, no one calls bopomofo "Chinese characters."

> >> I'm not familiar with Bell's visible speech, but I guess that would
> >> represent another
> >
> >another logosyllabary??? not in the slightest!
> No. Of course not. Another class of writing system, which is why I
> immediately followed that by a 5th class that used it as an example.
> Peter, methinks you're overreacting. :-)
> >> 5. featural: structural units represent phonological features
> >
> >Bell's Visible Speech.
> >
> >> but Hangul would *not* be an example of this class of script.
> >
> >No one suggests it is.
> Eh? Nobody has called Hangul a featural script? Which pages from WWS
> should I quote first?

No one suggests it represents phonological features. It iconically
represents parts of the oral cavity, and Sampson calls it "featural,"
and someone on another list apparently took this to mean 'Jakobsonian
distinctive features'.

> >> Should we not be willing to see if we can improve upon what has
> been
> >> given to us?
> >
> >Go ahead and try ... :-)
> Well, I have. And rather than comment on the merits or demerits of the
> principles on which I based this system of classification, providing
> clear reasoning, you've simply made an assertion of invalidity on one
> aspect, and made some weak or unfounded complaints about details
> regarding examples I used.

C'est la vie!
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...