Re: Quasi-logographic

> > This definition of logographic clears things up for me. I guess I
> > missed Hockett.
>
> Review of *The World's Writing Systems*, in *Language*

What year was this? I wonder if this followed Defrancis, also Wong,
who argued for the term morphosyllabary.

>
> > However it is not a transparent or obvious
> > definition. The problem is that if a logographic system is a
> > syllabary that distinguishes homophones then what is an

alphabetic

> > system that distinguishes homophones -
>
> Nonexistent. An alphabetic system assigns symbols to segments.
>
> > quasi-logographic? How can
> > Chinese and English be compared? One maps phonemes and the other
> > syllables, both phonographic, but one is popularly categorized

as

> > phonographic and the other as logographic.
>
> Individual units of Chinese writing are logograms. Combinations of
> letters in English must sometimes be taken as logographic units
> (bomb/comb/tomb, women, perhaps a few dozen others, perhaps more).

I agree that in English the orthography or combination of letters
creates the morphological representation. In reading theory a highly
morphophonemic system, e.g. English, is considered to contrast
sharply with a more phonemic system, e.g. Spanish.

>
> > I prefer for myself the dichotomy of syllabic/phonemic, both are
> > phonographic and some more or less morphological.
>
> Utterly useless. To suppose that Cherokee and Chinese writing are
> remotely similar is just bizarre.

Historically and formally, I suppose....
Actually I have spent a significant amount of time watching both
adults and children read and write Cree, Chinese and Tamil. To
compare the cognitive processing involved is not bizarre, maybe
mindbending but, in fact, useful.

Suzanne McCarthy