Re: script count?

Michael Everson wrote:

> At 14:35 +0100 2003-12-12, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> >Michael Everson wrote:
> >> I think your analogy is false. I THINK YOUR ANALOGY IS FALSE.
> >> ;-)
> >
> >But I think it is true. BUT I THINK IT IS TRUE. but i think
> it is true.
> >
> >As I thought it once more than you, and in three different
> scripts, it gotta
> >be true. :-)
>
> I don't think so. Hiragana is used in grammatical endings, Katakana
> is used for foreign words.

In most languages, capital initials are used for proper names; in German,
they are used for nouns. It's the same kind of grammatically determined
differentiations that you find in Japanese kana.

BTW, "kana": how is it that two separate scripts have a cover term for
describing both?

> They are not interchangeable in the same
> way that Latin case forms are.

Generally speaking, Latin case forms are not interchangeable: "reading" and
"Reading" are two different English words, even pronounced in different
ways.

Capitals can substitute small letters only when the show EMPHASIS. But I
understand that this is true to some degree even with katakana vs. hiragana.

> Latin capital letters are special
> shapes of small letters and/or vice versa. I don't think the same
> relationship applies to the Japanese syllabaries.

Here I agree, in general. In fact, I never claimed a perfect analogy.

(In a few cases, howevwer, hiraganas and katakanas are indeed slightly
different shapes of each other; e.g.: ウ=う, エ=え, カ=か, キ=き, コ=こ, セ=せ, ニ=に,
ヘ=へ, モ=も, ヤ=や, リ=り.)

_ Marco