From: suzmccarth
Message: 2420
Date: 2004-06-06
> Additionally, calling Korean Hangul a syllabary is at odds withthe
> perception of most Koreans, who see Hangul as an alphabetwhose letters
> just happen to be grouped into syllable blocks.I agree, they have less need for syllable - level representation
>native
> > While the analytic nature of the syllabaries may be useful for
> > technical encoding, these systems are still learned by some
> > speakers as syllabaries. Some members of these languagecommunities
> > will have reduced access to digital literacy if the syllabicnature
> > of their system is not reflected at some level in the inputmethod.
>time, that
> Even if Koreans read Hangul syllable blocks one block at a
> does not make the writing system a syllabary. Peter Danielsand others
> have pointed out that fluent readers of English, and otherlanguages
> written with alphabets, read clusters of letters at a time.Yes, this is known. Shall I take the Tamil syllabary off my
> Character encodings and input methods do not have to bedesigned
> together. Keyboards can be built to bridge any gaps betweenthe
> character encoding, the way native speakers view their script,and the
> practical limits on number of keys.I have decided that the transliteration systems built into tamil
>
> -Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/