Young-Key Kim-Renaud wrote:

> > > If an alphabet is defined as "a system of signs expressing
> > > single [distinctive] sounds of speech" (Gelb 1952:166),
> >
> > Which isn't an adequate definition (but it enabled his
> > alphabetolatry).
> I think you need to elaborate why it is not adequate; please do not just refer to your book in an electronic LIST discussion like this.

Because he failed to recognize the real difference between alphabets and
abjads, and instead tried to make abjads into a sort of fake syllabary
because he decided (on no grounds whatsoever) that "alphabets" (as if
there were ever more than one) develop out of "syllabaries" (whereas no
true syllabary has ever developed into anything else).

> > > the Korean writing system is an alphabetic system. The confusion
> > > comes from the fact that han'gul letters were not arbitrarily
> > > chosen like in most alphabetic systems but were created based on
> > > deep linguistic knowledge of the Korean sound system. And other
> > > important linguistic units such as syllable are well accommodated.
> >
> > Thus the classification doesn't apply to it.
> >
> > Because you post lines of length > 256 (or 512 or 1024?) characters,
> > they don't get Quoted in my Reply.
> Sorry. I am copying/repeating the sent text below, with my apologies to those who could read it.
> > But here's a passage I don't agree with:
> >
> > > The reason why Peter and some others think han'gul
> > > is "outside the classification" typologically is that the alphabetic
> > > letters are assembled into syllable blocks in writing.
> >
> > The reason I think it's outside the classification is that it was the
> > product of linguistic sophistication and hasn't "just growed."
> > --
> > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
> So, Peter, because han'gul is not like the other alphabets you know, it
> cannot belong to the group?! I can only say I am impressed with your
> confidence and will back out from the discussion on the issue.

No, because Hangul (like Cree, like Tolkien's scripts, etc.) is the
product of "sophisticated grammatogeny" -- that is, was created by
people who understood phonology and deliberately tried to come up with a
script that matched their language really well -- it doesn't fit into a
classification that classifies scripts devised without such awareness.

> Young-Key
> =====Repeated for the sake of Peter D. and the others who could not read
> the message in its entirety=====

I could _read_ the message, but I couldn't _quote_ it.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...