Re: phonetic-based requirements (was: Re: phoneticism. phonemicism

On Dec 13, 2003, at 3:58 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> John Jenkins wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2003, at 11:20 AM, Patrick Chew wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's a given that we acknowledge that there are
>>> "phonetic"
>>> components to Han logograms (hrm.. will this be a safe term to use?)
>>
>> Nah. I think I dislike the term "logogram" about as much as Peter
>> dislikes "ideograph."
>
> Morphogram would be better, but then you have to explain what morphemes
> are.
>

If you *have* to have a function-based vocabulary, morphogram is
probably about as good as you can get. The problem is, of course, that
not all of them are morphemes, either; a very small number are purely
phonetic and have no inherent meaning.

> Why do you dislike logogram?
>

'Cuz they're not words. I think that de Francis sometimes
overemphasizes this point, but most actual words in modern Chinese are
polysyllabic.

I tend to lean towards sinogram because it's the (slightly pretentious)
Western equivalent of what they're called in East Asia, and because it
doesn't pretend to describe how they function. Of course, it's wrong,
too, since they're not all Chinese.

========
John H. Jenkins
jenkins@...
jhjenkins@...
http://homepage..mac.com/jhjenkins/