suzmccarth wrote:

>
> >
> > > > Which "French" use the term "neosyllabary"?
>
> I notice that you refer to the term 'neosyllabary" also. I saw it in
> a direct quote from your book on the computing and IT listserv at
> Buffalo so it cannot be any mystery to you. I just happened to read
> the term first in French and it stuck that way but I don't know
> where.
> > No answer ...
>
> No, no further answer.

This was you first answer. If you have seen my book, then you know that
I abhor the word "neosyllabary."

> > Do you see what you do?
> ???
> >
> > You asked about "morphophonemic," but you intended "morphophonemic
> > spelling."
>
> That is possible. I thought the context implied 'spelling' -
> evidently not.
>
> I am still waiting for a definition of quasi-logographic.

Are you not familiar with the English prefix "quasi-"?

> Defrancis and Chih-Hao Tsai have great online articles about the
> term morphosyllabic for Chinese.
>
> >It seems like you've been doing that for weeks. You've really
> > got to learn to walk before you can run!
>
> Actually I have received really excellent help off the list on using
> unicode fonts in my multilingual website. In a very short time a
> few people have hauled me out of the mess I had in Office 2000. I
> am achieving certain objectives, and can now post languages from
> alphabets, to complex scripts and CKJ on my website. I am simply
> having trouble with input methods for children and naive native
> speakers. This depends on how a script is categorized.

I am not talking about fonts or computers. You are bandying about terms
from linguistics as if you know what they mean, but it subsequently
emerges that you don't.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...