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

> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>

wrote:

> > > suzmccarth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels"

<grammatim@...>

> > wrote:
> > > > > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels"

<grammatim@...>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > And this is why a special name is wanted for the

syllabically organised

> > > > > > scripts where the option of further analysis is available.

> > > > > What is an "option"?

> > I don't understand why Peter Daniels is asking what he meant when

he

> > used the word 'option'.

> You said "syllabically organi[z]ed scripts where the option of

further

> analysis is available," and I have no idea what you meant.

PTD wrote:
But the Japanese child doesn't have the option the Tamil child does,
of internalizing the fact that all the consonants and all the vowels
are written separately and (well, except /u/) similarly.

This may be generalised in the following steps:

1. The Tamil script is a script where a child has the option of
internalizing the fact that all the consonants and all the vowels are
written separately and (well, except /u/) similarly.

2. The Tamil script is a script where a child has the option of
further analysis.

3. The Tamil script is a script where the option of further analysis
is available.

Is that clear enough now?

> > Yes. 'Alphasyllabary' as defined and interpreted by Bright is
> > probably inappropriate, as hPags-Pa is very clearly organised by
> > syllables. Sproat's concept seems more appropriate.
>
> Sproat has a concept??

He expressed one.

> > > > What does syllabary mean?

> > > It has recently been clarified and necessarily restricted.
> > >
> > > Or do you want to continue to call whales fish?

> > Phylogenetically, that's not as daft as you think it is. A

herring is

> > closer to a whale than to a shark! It's also quite appropriate
> > hydrodynamically.

> And that is a red herring.

A witty retort, but wrong. You are interested in the history,
Suzanne in the present use. Your analogy goes further than you
thought.

> > So what word do you think should be used to capture the parallels
> > with, say, Tamil, which is not a typical Indian Brahmi script,

and,

> > say, Japanese kana? Tamil may have more in common with Further

Indian

> > Brahmi scripts than with other Indian scripts - and it's more

closely

> > related to the Further Indian scripts to boot!

> Parallels of _what_ with Tamil and kana?

Replace 'with' by 'between'.

> More thought than is required to do the same for Hangul? Writing is
> conservative, and becomes more and more morphophonemic.

I believe so, though it would be nice to hear from somone who
consults both Thai and Korean texts for information. I am talking of
syllabification at the level where it is related to word or morpheme
division, as part of the practical matter of reading with
comprehension. A great deal of the syllabification process in
reading Thai depends on recognising familiar, expected words, not
unlike interpreting an unfamiliar style of lettering, be it
handwriting or a font.

Are you saying that in Korean writing syllable division is
(sometimes) subordinated to morpheme division? I know that the two
clash. Or are you merely saying that not all assimilations are shown
in writing?

Richard.