Richard Wordingham 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?

Why are you saying that "the script has the option," when in the script
it's not _optional_, it's simply _there_; but the child learning to read
Tamil, especially if taught by syllable charts, has the option of
discovering the structure of the syllable glyphs for themself? This is
not a possibility in kana.

> > > 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.

Which was ...?

> > > 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'.

So what are the parallels between Tamil and kana? You've just recopied
what I said about the difference.

> > 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.

You're talking about word recognition rather than syllabification
specifically.

> 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?

No assimilations are shown in writing (see Sohn), and the orthography
has deliberately been made _more_ morphophonemic over the centuries (see
also King in WWS).
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...