Re: functional classification of writing systems

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Young-Key Kim-Renaud
<kimrenau@...> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Here are my comments on a couple of recent messages

copied below:

>
> (1) What do you mean by "analytic systems"?

analytic - breaks down below the syllable level - I just use the
term to describe things that are alphabets, but may or may not
be linear.

>I smell the "tyranny of the alphabet."

I am trying to argue against that.

>Not only phonemes but syllables, morphemes, and words are

all linguistic units. Don't all writing systems reflect some kind of
analyses of various linguistic units?

I can see how the word 'analytic' can be misconstrued

> (2) Han'gul is an alphabet, and I am not saying it just because I

am a Korean, representing the "perception by Koreans." There
is a clear order of the phonemic units in both writing and
pronunciation within Korean syllables. The number of syllables
are finite in a typical syllabary, and each syllable has a unique
shape. No finite set of syllable shapes exists in Korean, as any
number of new ones, including non-sense syllables, can be
generated by using just a vowel or a vowel with one or more
consonants.

My only opinion relating to Korean is that it is easier to keyboard
than Tamil because it has syllable-level representation
Do you think this is fair?

> Doug Ewell is right. Just because Koreans write their letters in

syllable blocks, their writing system does not become a
syllabary. With this kind of definition, English and all European
languages and even Korean writing would become logographic,
since (at least monomorphemic) words are formed by
assembling the letters into (linear or sylalable) blocks,

I am not arguing with any of this -

I really only ever wanted to say what you have just said - some
systems organize into linear blocks and some into syllable
blocks - that's it , I think there are linear and non-linear systems,
what do you think?

> which are separated by spaces--In fact, this is a kind of
>reasoning that inspired my very compatriot Insup Taylor to call
>the Korean writing system an alphabet, a syllabary and a
>logography, all at the same time.
>
> I am not sure why there is "less need for syllable-level
>representation [for Korean] than Tamil."

well, the same need then - that's okay too - I won't argue with that
but why should there be less need for syllable-level
representation in Tamil than Korean? That was my initial
question.

>However, the importance of the syllable as a linguistic unit in
>Korean phonology, is well established.

It is in Tamil too.

The inventor of the Korean alphabet, King Sejong, certainly was
a fantastic linguist. All the underlying principles and reasoning
are clearly documented in a scholarly commentary called
_Hunmin chong'um haerye_, accompanying the promulgation
document and a handbook for learning the alphabet called
"Hunmin chong'um" (1446).

>
> In han'gul, other phonological units are also well represented

by non-arbitrary letter shapes , which are capable of
representing various Korean phonological phenomena such as
vowel harmony, sound symbolism, and consonantal
neutralizations, etc.

Thank you for helping me rephrase what I want to say.

Suzanne McCarthy

>
> Young-Key Kim-Renaud
> George Washington University
>
> =====Friday, June 04, 2004 1:48 AM
> From: suzmccarth <suzmccarth@...>
> To: qalam <qalam@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: functional classification of writing systems
>
> Instead of the evolutionary model of logographies, syllabaries,

and alphabets, etc. I suggest that there are only two basic types
of systems.

>
> These are alphabets or analytic systems, and syllabaries or

wholistic systems. Each of these may encode to a lesser or
greater degree the morphology of the language. Syllabaries may
be non-

> analytic like Japanese and Cherokee, or have an analytic

composition like Cree, Korean and Tamil.

>
> While the analytic nature of the syllabaries may be useful for

technical encoding, these systems are still learned by some
native speakers as syllabaries. Some members of these
language communities will have reduced access to digital
literacy if the syllabic nature of their system is not reflected at
some level in the input method.

>
>
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth"

<suzmccarth@...> wrote:

> ...
> > >
> > > > Additionally, calling Korean Hangul a syllabary is at odds
> > with
> > > the
> > > > perception of most Koreans, who see Hangul as an

alphabet

> > > whose letters
> > > > just happen to be grouped into syllable blocks.
> > >
> > > I agree, they have less need for syllable - level

representation

> > > than Tamil.
> > > >
> > > > > While the analytic nature of the syllabaries may be

useful for

> > > > > technical encoding, these systems are still learned by

some

> > > native
> > > > > speakers as syllabaries. Some members of these

language

> > > communities
> > > > > will have reduced access to digital literacy if the syllabic
> > > nature
> > > > > of their system is not reflected at some level in the input
> > > method.
> > > >
> > > > Even if Koreans read Hangul syllable blocks one block at

a

> > > time, that
> > > > does not make the writing system a syllabary. Peter

Daniels

> > > and others
> > > > have pointed out that fluent readers of English, and other
> > > languages
> > > > written with alphabets, read clusters of letters at a time.
> ...
> > > >
> > > > -Doug Ewell
> > > > Fullerton, California
> > > > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/