>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.