Andrew C. West wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:37:10 -0400, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > Neither Chinese nor Zhuang is or was written with "ideographs." As you
> > say, they denote pronunciation and/or meaning, not "ideas." The
> > appropriate term is "logograph," or if you want to be picky
> > "morphograph."
> No doubt you're correct, but to be honest I don't really care that much about
> the terminology ... I'm just as happy calling them simply "characters"; but
> whatever the rights or wrongs of the term, "ideograph" has gained widespread
> currency, particularly in Unicode parlance. Still, if you prefer "logograph"
> I'll try to remember to use that term next time I talk about hanzi/kanji on this
> list.

Lots of linguists were involved in Unicode. I wonder how that happened.

It's the term "ideograph" that led people like Leibniz to waste much
time ssearching for "the perfect language" (Eco). DuPonceau took care of
it in 1838!
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...