From: John Jenkins
Message: 1928
Date: 2003-12-13
> I think it's a given that we acknowledge that there areNah. I think I dislike the term "logogram" about as much as Peter
> "phonetic"
> components to Han logograms (hrm.. will this be a safe term to use?)
> I wonder, though, how is it, then, that we can "derive" orI'm sure this has been studied. Richard Cook of Berkeley has done some
> access
> the phonetics from the _base_ graphemes? If broken down to the set of
> graphemes used as "phonetic" components, there seems to be an
> overwhelmingly large set of overlap (with *semantic* distinction)
> given the
> range of the phonology - even if using reconstructed phonologies for
> Old
> Chinese or Proto-Sino-Tibetan.
>