Re: Quasi-logographic

suzmccarth wrote:

> Why can't I just skip Hockett altogether and say that Chinese is a
> syllabary and there is no logographic/phonographic dichotomy in
> writing systems

Because such a dichotomy *is* out there. A syllabary is supposed to have
about 50 or 100 signs, not 7.000 to 60.000!

I guess you know the famous motto attributed to Albert Einstein: "Things
should be made as simple as possible. But not more than that." (quoting out
of my memory: I cannot access the web right now).

> - there are only phonological and morphological
> elements and a syllabic/phonemic continuum.

I cannot see any "morphological elements" in English spelling (apart perhaps
word spacing and capital letters -- but these elements are certainly not
unique to English).

_ Marco