Re: Quasi-logographic

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Luciano Perondi (molotro) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> - 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).

What is meant by the term morphophonemic? Does it not refer to
English? - site/sight to distinguish homophones or no/know. I
cannot agree that this is only historic because teens instant
messaging now use no/noe to disambiguate, a new non-historic
morphemic differentiation. What about the bound morpheme -ed used
for /t/ or /@d/ or /d/. Isn't that a set spelling to represent past
tense. How was the term quasi-logographic intended earlier?

(Of course, I could not observe those who have Cherokee as their
first language of literacy. However, Tamil and Cree are called neo-
syllabaries by the French. Maybe that term is descriptive.)

Suzanne McCarthy

> > >
> > > E.g. in the words < extreme > and < extremism > the second < e
> has a
> > > different pronunciation (according to my dictionary), but in

the

> > > written form the morpheme < extrem- > is the same. Maybe this

is a

> > > "morphological element" in English spelling (if extrem- is a

morpheme).

> >
> > I'm afraid your dictionary is wrong!
> >
> > An example is serene/serenity.
>
> Maybe you meant to copy the example extreme/extremity.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...