From: Peter Constable <petercon@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:21 am
Subject: RE: How about a typology for input methods

> > From: Peter T. Daniels [grammatim@...]

> > > Non-linearity is systemic to some scripts. The same isn't true for any
> > > alphabetic *script* that I know of, but that doesn't mean that
> > > *orthographies* based on those scripts can have non-linear
> > > representations.
> >
> > But wait -- you just said you didn't like calling Korean by something> that didn't reflect its relation to its substance (i.e.
> "featural"),so you must want to call Korean an alphabet, and Korean isn't linear!
>
> Indeed, if Korean were to be considered an alphabet, it would make
> sense to say it is systemically non-linear (apart from modern
> linearizedvariants). But I think it's insightful -- I know you
> disagree -- to have
> a system of classification in which one class encompasses scripts in
> which there are units of graphical structure that correspond to
> phones,and also units of graphical structure that correspond to
> syllables. This makes a class that includes both Korean and SignWriting, and
> (employingprototypes) also Indic scripts. And "alphasyllabary"
> seems as good a name as any.
>
> Again, I know you disagree. (I have no intention of rehearsing our
> lackof consensus from 2001.)
>
> Peter Constable

As I said before, Korean may be written in syllable blocks, but it is NOT "non-linear." There is a clear and unique order of the alphabetic letters in those syllable blocks both in writing and reading. The letters are not put into syllable blocks randomly as a bundle! That is why han'gul is neither a syllabary nor an alphasyllabary, but simply an alphabet.

Young-Key Kim-Renaud