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

> Why you prefer the vertical arrangement isn't interesting to me, but
> what do you mean by "real structure"? What is the "real structure" of
> the English alphabet?

A heap of short range relationships? For example, derived letters
occurr next to their ancestral forms: IJ, UVW. Then there are the
extras (or optionals) beyond the WS22A (West Semitic 22-character
Alphabet(s)), originally VX then VXYZ. There are the phonetic
groupings BCD (before Etruscan speech habits messed it up) and (L)MN.
Or should the WS22A run be taken as ABCD, 4 maximally-voiced stops
for their point of articulation? In English English, there's the
rhyming structure of JK making a natural run IJK. (This Sassenach
found it doesn't hold when 'J' rhymes with 'I'.)

Why does G (a modified C) take the place of WS22A / Greek 'Z'?

As the question was about the *English* alphabet, where did æsc, eth
thorn and wynn fit in?

If the question is about the Roman alphabet, then you could throw in
the digraphs where they are treated are as separate units, e.g. Welsh
A B C CH D DD E F FF G NG H I L LL M N O P PH R RH S T TH U W Y. My
Welsh grandfather insisting on pronouncing 'Ph.D.' as 'F.D.' in
English. (I'm not sure that denying J K Q V X Z is valid - saying
that the Welsh for 'Jones' is 'Evans' still doesn't deal with the issue!)

Further structural modifications occur when there are extra letters -
for a real headache, consider the enormous alphabet of the 'Latin'
script in Unicode! The Scandinavian collation is wondrous to behold
when it starts supporting German words.

Richard.

P.S. I suppose I should make a recording of the sound of one hand
clapping!