--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "John H. Jenkins" <jenkins@...> wrote:

> Personally, I believe that just calling them "Han
> characters," or "Chinese characters," or "sinograms" is to be

preferred

> over other words.
>

This sounds a little more straight forward. There probably isn't a
need for a specific linguistic label. A description of how
thesystem works should be enough. If Han Chinese characters
function as ideographs in some way then say that. Linguistic terms,
as unqualified types, should probably be left to a different arena
altogether.

Evidently Daniels terms were meant to indicate historic order. It
might be better not to label concurrent systems used for
technological communication and nation-building as if they belonged
to either an earlier or later historic period. It might label some
systems as if they were more suited to the needs of modernity,
e.g.literacy and democracy, than others.

On the topic of replacing terms that are already in traditional use,
virtually all land surveys in Canada are still in the imperial
system. Even if there were an agreement on new terminology, it might
take more than a generation to have these terms accepted.

I would certainly wish to invite Peter Daniels to more genial debate
if so many different issues were not intertwined. I find his ideas
quite interesting but cannot accept his typology as the status quo
for use outside the discussion of the *history* of writing
systems.

Respectfully,

Suzanne McCarthy