Print

Print


>There have been analyses which suggest that English orthography is
>best considered as partly logographic, yes. (Less because of breaking
>characters into words than because of the retention of the same
>spelling in derived forms which are pronounced differently, though, I
>think.)
intresting point of view.

>Look, we both know how Hangul works.  I'm just saying it's possible to
>analyse it this way.  None of my definitions of the word "syllabary"
>include the word "atomic".  Saying that someone who understands how
>the system works is "tricked" into thinking it's a syllabary is just
>silly.
I didn't know that you knew how it worked.

>Besides, your pointing out that there are elements that describe
>features below the level of the phoneme would by the same logic
>indicate that at least some of the characters aren't alphabetic
>either, but rather collections of featural signs.  How can you say
>that <h>+<a>+<n> isn't a syllabic character, and then maintain the
>velar + aspirated _is_ a consonantal character?
I had not seen it that way. What makes me think the main level is alphabetic (and thus the system should be considered alphabetic) is if you ask a korean which sign composes his writing system, he will give you a list of the letter, not the syllable, not of the featural components. The system is percieved alphabetic by its native users, i believe. But your point of view is quite intersting too.

>This is true, but irrelevant - I simply point out that each syllable
>has a distinct character.
This is where we disagree. I do not see one hangul syllab as one character, but as one collection of characters. But know i understand your view, and ok, why not.