Re: How about a typology for input methods

suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> Would this also include the characteristc that it differentiates
> homophones?

Again, does anyone know what she's talking about? besides alluding to
Hockett's suggestion?

> > I think you said some script was an alphasyllabary and some other
> > one was an abugida.
>
> I believe you are right about that. I have never before used the
> word alphasyllabary myself for classifying scripts and may never
> again. However, I intended this term to suggest that it was a sub-
> type of the syllabic script group.
>
> There really should be a term for systematically constructed
> syllabic scripts that would, in fact, include Ethiopic, Tamil and
> Cree all in one group.

Why? If you are going to propose a classification, you should explain
why your classification would be useful, or more useful than any
existing classification.

> I would not want to see the term abugida used
> first because it suggests an association with alphabets and abjads
> that Cree does not have. Secondly, abugida can only refer to a
> separate *primary* type, not a sub-type, and obscures the fact that

"Can only"? I invented the word, so I can use it however I want. And I
happen not to want it to be used for Cree.

> there are two groups of syllabic scripts. Why not recognize the
> similarities between these two groups, systematically constructed
> syllabic scripts and non-systematically constructed syllabic scripts
> and unite them under the larger class of syllabic scripts?

How about, whenever I shout something in capital letters, I never have
to repeat it again?

BECAUSE RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE OF THE ADDITIONAL BASIC TYPES "ABJAD"
AND "ABUGIDA" GAVE ME INSIGHTS INTO THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF
SCRIPTS, WHICH HAD NOT APPEARED TO ANYONE IN THE PREVIOUS CENTURY WHEN
THE TRIPARTITE CLASSIFICATION LOGOGRAPHY, SYLLABARY, ALPHABET PREVAILED.

> Originally, I proposed two continua for scripts. The first was the
> phonographic to logographic continuum (or phonographic to
> morphographic continuuum)and the second was the alphabetic to
> syllabic continuum. This includes alphabetic, consonantal
> alphabetic, systematically constructed syllabic scripts and non-
> systematically constructed syllabic scripts. Since both dimensions
> truly are continua, this avoids the need to pinpoint a script type.

And avoiding this need is a good thing?

> It also recognizes the equally phonological character of alphabets
> and syllabic scripts, while enabling one to differentiate
> phonographic and logographic syllabic scripts. It may even allow for
> an understanding that an alphabetic script can provide a quasi-
> logographic spelling type.

Why would that be a useful thing to allow for?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...