Young-Key Kim-Renaud wrote:

>
> 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.

Or, as Jim McCawley put it, simultaneously alphabetic, syllabic, and
featural. Because it's a "sophisticated grammatogeny," like Cree it's
simply outside the classification.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...