Print

Print


Yes, and I am saying such a written language is impossible.

We have never had such a language, and I wonder what you would base its
grammatology on if not phonology or morphology.

There have been attempts at philosophical languages--languages that are
semantically precise--which, if they worked, could be the basis of such a
writing system, but those have all blown up.

So what would a grammatology sans phonology/morphology be based on?

On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Jason Cullen <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Yes, and I am saying such a written language is impossible.
>
> We have never had such a language, and I wonder what you would base its
> grammatology on if not phonology or morphology.
>
> There have been attempts at philosophical languages--languages that are
> semantically precise--which, if they worked, could be the basis of such a
> writing system, but those have all blown up.
>
> So what would a grammatology sans phonology/morphology be based on?
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> We seem to have fallen down another rabbit hole, but one more time: I'm
>> talking about a hypothetical written language that has never been
>> associated with a spoken language or anything else.  It's a thought
>> experiment, an example of "phonology" in the broader sense we were taking
>> about in these threads. In such a hypothetical language, the only logical
>> meaning for "phoneme" I can think of is identical with "grapheme". Unless
>> there is some other candidate I'm missing that exists purely in the realm
>> of a never-spoken written-only language...
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Aug 2, 2015, at 14:20, Jason Cullen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, two thoughts:
>> >
>> > First, a grapheme is going to be realized as graphs. So there is still
>> some
>> > issue analogous to phonology.
>> > Second, I don't know of any writing system that ignores phonology. Even
>> > most Chinese characters have phonological elements.
>> >
>> > Of course, people have always wanted an idealized writing system
>> > independent of phonology and lexemes, like Leibniz's idealized
>> > (mis)understanding of Chinese. I doubt such a system is possible.
>> >
>> >> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I was speaking of a purely-written language. No spoken, signed,
>> signaled,
>> >> or any other form exists - just the script. What is a phoneme in one of
>> >> those if not a grapheme?
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >>> On Aug 2, 2015, at 13:13, Jason Cullen <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> A grapheme isn't actually a phoneme necessarily, since more than one
>> >>> grapheme (or set of graphemes) can be used to represent a phoneme.
>> {ph},
>> >>> {gh}, and {f] are all used to represent English /f/.
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Aug 2, 2015, at 10:16, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If you define phoneme as "The smallest contrastive
>> >>>>> linguistic unit which may bring about a change of meaning",
>> >>>>> then fair enough.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So for written-only languages, I suppose a grapheme is actually a
>> >> phoneme
>> >>>> as well. I can buy that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As one of the folks who, through my own ignorance, helped kickstart
>> the
>> >>>> argument about the extended definitions of phon{e,eme,ology,...}, I
>> must
>> >>>> apologize again for the derailment.  While etymology is not destiny,
>> in
>> >>>> this case the root is so close to the surface that I tripped over
>> it. :/
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Jason Cullen
>> >>> MA Applied English Linguistics
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jason Cullen
>> > MA Applied English Linguistics
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Cullen
> MA Applied English Linguistics
>



-- 
Jason Cullen
MA Applied English Linguistics