Re: Quasi-logographic

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > As a programmer would put it:
>
> You know what I think of programmers ...

Yes, thank you from the programming lobby...

> > 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).
>
> Egyptian isn't a syllabary. It denotes absolutely no vowels
> whatsoever.

I know. That's why I took it as an example of the fallacy of the statement
that a logographic system has to be syllabic.

> It has a fairly minor logographic component.

Are Egyptian hieroglyphs not logographic writing? OK, I'll take your word,
but how about the many analogies between in the structure of the two writing
systems? E.g., the Egyptian "determinatives" seem to match the Chinese
"radicals", while the Egyptian "ideographs" seem to match the Chinese
xiangxing and xiangshi classes of the traditional Chinese six-class
analysis.

Anyhow, isn't the Japanese writing system a logographic system (at least in
part)? Yet, kanjis don't always have monosyllabic readings.

(Notice that I am arguing against the part which says "a logographic system
is a syllabary that...", not against the part which says "a logographic
system distinguishes homophones".)

_ Marco