suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- 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.

You still haven't said what's "alphasyllabic" about Hangul.

> > 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.

That is the exact opposite of what I said Hannas said.

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

AIUI, it is.

What would give you the idea that anyone thinks "a syllabary would
necessarily be very close to surface phonology"?

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

There was just that one point where the meaning was affected.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...