Re: Quasi-logographic

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > > Or, as C. F. Hockett put it, a logographic system is a syllabary
> > > that distinguishes homophones.
> >
> > This sounds silly...
> >
> > How can Egyptian writing be called a "syllabary" (whatever
> > it does or does not distinguish semantically)?
>
> No one supposes that it is ...

*I* always thought that Egyptian hieroglyphic was a logographic system. Is
this wrong? If it isn't, then Hockett's statement is wrong.

As a programmer would put it:

IF what I think about hieroglyphic is true
AND what Hockett says about a logographic system is true
THEN
hieroglyphic is a syllabary
("that distinguishes homophones", incidentally).
END

> > Even Chinese characters, as used in Japanese, are in no way
> > "syllabic": several On readings are by-syllabic, and Kun
> > readings can be several syllables long.
>
> So who says kanji are a syllabary?

According to the above quote from Hockett, either they are a syllabary or
they are not a logographic system (or Hockett is wrong; or the quote is
incorrect, e.g. it was limited to Chinese).

_ Marco