Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> 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.

Suzanne's view would be very useful here!
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...