Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com writes:
> > Pushing the analysis to the bare bones, one can discover
> that these Hangul Jamos [...]
Please, don't take this too seriously. The whole thread was plain chatting
(I think), and I just tried some cheating for the gusto of making the next
move in the game.
> Hm, didn't you forget h among the consonants?
No, I deliberately removed it, considering it as "ng" with my "aspiration
diacritic" (a small horizontal line overlaid to the letter).
But this is plain wrong (blunder #1), even by my own rules: Hangul "h" has
*two* horizontal lines, and they are on *top* of it.
> And I can't for my life make it to five vowels, it must be six
> (a, ô, o, u, i, û), or possibly eight (add e and ae) or possibly
> only two (i and û).
Six, sorry! (blunder #2).
> I would however say that you are stretching things
> a bit when you call the second small tag to a vertical or horizontal
> line a diacritic, but not the first.
"A bit"!? I would say that I stretched things in all directions, for the
sole purpose of making an absurd statement.
Of course, I totally agree that such an over-analysis of graphemes is a
pointless joke. Unless it is used for mnemonic purposes, maybe.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT