Re: How about a typology for input methods/typology of han'gul

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Young-Key Kim-Renaud wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>

A classification system, or any way of analysing anything, is good for
what it's meant for. Peter's classification system was not meant to
classify scripts invented by sophisticates in phonology. You can try to
apply it to them, and maybe have fun and all, but it won't tell you
anything useful or insightful (at least that's what I seem to be
hearing). If you want to classify *all* scripts for the purposes of,
say, rendering, or studying, or comparing ways of handling certain
cases, that's another (set of) kettle(s) of fish. PTD's system is meant
for historical analysis and insight into how things evolved, so things
that didn't involve are out of band.

~mark