Re: How about a typology for input methods

suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
>
> > "Quasi-" is an English prefix. "Logographic" is an English word.
> It's
> > not a technical term. It means "logographic-like."
>
> I seem to remember a definition of 'logographic' that stated it was a
> syllabary that differentiates homophones. It is not the quasi part of
> this expression that worries me.

Have you never before encountered differing definitions of technical
terms? Did I _endorse_ Hockett's definition? I simply offered it to you.
It was immediately shown to be not terribly apt.

But what does that have to do with "quasi-logographic"? (I.e., non
sequitur.)

> How is English spelling quasi-logographic? I want to read your
> entire explanation. No polemics intended - just interest.

You cannot determine the pronunciation of a word from its spelling in
every case; you need to know the word -- to memorize it as a whole (the
"whole word" approach). Did you miss bomb/comb/tomb?

> > > and she answers
> > > > very few of mine;
> > >
> > > not personal ones
> >
> > Like "what do you mean by 'alphasyllabary'?"?
>
> I don't personally use this as a class but intended it originally in
> my post as a synonym for abugida.

I think you said some script was an alphasyllabary and some other one
was an abugida.

> However, I intended this term to suggest that it was a sub-type of
> the syllabic script group.

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...