Re: Neosyllabaries

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>

>wrote:
> suzmccarth wrote:
>
> > The interest for me in Taylor's work is in providing an
>historical
> > context for teaching method of Hangul. For some people it is
> > definitely an abstract alphabet but for others possibly an
> > alphasyllabary.


> Hannas, a writer as reliable as Taylor, also describes the
>syllable-only
> teaching of Hangul to first-graders; apparently they are expected
>to,
> and do, figure out the construction of the syllable-blocks from
>letters
> on their own after a few months.
>
> But from a Korean bookstore in Chicago I got a babies' ABC book a
>long
> time ago, and it did present the individual letters.

That is very interesting and proves the point that Hangul was indeed
taught as an alphabet.

I don't know whether a syllabary would necessarily be very close to
surface phonology. Would Japanese orthography be close to surface
phonology?

And thank you for any corrections to my translation - much
appreciated.

Regards,

Suzanne McCarthy