From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 2146
Date: 2004-05-11
>See?
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > Finally, neither "å¥3" nor "é|¬" can be further subdivided
> > > in graphic elements conveying either a certain meaning or
> > > a certain sound.
> > >
> > [...]
> >
> > How does that approach clarify the use of "grapheme" for any other
> > script?
>
> Well, also Latin letters such as "a"-"z" are atomic elements of the script,
> as opposed to digraphs such as "ch", which are decomposable in a string of
> elements such as "c" + "h".
>
> Notice that the decomposition of "ch" in "c" + "h" is *not* based on the
> visual aspect (as it would be, e.g., to decompose "B" in a vertical stem "I"
> + in a double arc "3"), but rather on functional characteristics: the "c"
> and "h" part have autonomous functional properties in the writing system.
>
> E.g., the uppercase/lowercase distinction is a good example of a fact which
> is better described as a property of the atomic elements, and not of the
> composed elements.
>
> You can say that uppercase letter "A" maps to lowercase letter "a", but you
> cannot say which "uppercase digraph" maps to digraph "ch": it can be either
> "Ch" or "CH", i.e., the elements such as "c" and "h" have autonomous
> uppercase mappings, regardless that they participate in a digraph or not.
> The fact that certain properties apply only to non-analyzable elements,Which is _exactly_ what Earl Herrick has been doing for nigh unto 50
> seems a possible rationale for having a cover term for that kind of
> elements. Not that I am defending the term "grapheme" per se: it can be a
> different term, or even just a descriptive phrase like "non-analyzable
> graphical element", but I think that we do have a concept to apply the term
> to.
>
> > Why aren't the seven basic brushstrokes the "graphemes" of Chinese?
> > Aren't they much more the "atoms" of Chinese writing?
>
> Yes, but that doesn't make sense from a functional point of view.
>
> Analyzing a Chinese character down to strokes(*) is like analyzing letter
> "B" in "I" + "3": it makes sense only if you are interested in the graphical
> appearance of the characters, i.e. if you are dealing with calligraphy or
> type design.
> But if you are dealing with the "grammar" of the writing system, thatSure they do -- they, with their arrangement and their order [think
> doesn't make sense. The "å¥3" and "é|¬" elements seen in "åª*" do have
> recognizable functional roles in the Chinese writing system, while the 13
> strokes in it do not.
> Similarly, a phon*e* [b] is analyzable in a series of "traits"(*) such asEnglish: "feature" (used for components of both phones and phonemes)
> "plosive", "bilabial", "voiced", but this analysis makes no sense if you are
> dealing with phon*eme* /b/.
>
> (* BTW, Italian "tratto" translates both "stroke" and "trait": am I being
> influenced by my mother tongue's lexicon?)
> > This is one of my basic examples for why not to use the term.But all writing systems aren't alike in the way that all languages are
> >
> > If you can't tell me what you want "graphemes" to do, I see no use for
> > the term.
>
> Let's say I just wish a term for the "terminal symbols" in the "grammar" of
> a writing system, i.e. a name for things which are not splittable anymore.