On 11/09/2001 10:51:13 PM "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:

>> And I'd suggest that my observations about typology and Hangul made me
>> recognise that a seemingly unrelated phonomenon could be newly

accounted

>> for in a unified way.
>
>Namely ... ?

(I have to go over it again?)

Namely this: in discussions on typology of writing systems that I have
heretofor read, there was one basis for forming defining criteria that
covered all scripts except Hangul; for Hangul, a type was defined on a
rather different basis. I have suggested that a typology is possible that
defines a set of types that cover *all* scripts on a single basis: what
kind of relationships exist between linguistic objects and structural
elements in the writing system that are used to represent them. Structural
elements in (e.g.) Latin or Arabic typically represent phones/phonemes;
structural elements in (e.g.) Cree or Katakana typically represent
syllables; Hangul has structural elements that represent phones/phonemes
but also has structural elements that represent syllables.


- 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@...>