Lars,
> | For instance, Korean Hangul is not only featural but also alphabetic
> | and alphasyllabaric.
>
> How can this be? If a script uses diacritics out of temporal order to
> indicate vowels it can't be an alphabet, and, similarly, if it does
> not, how can it be an alphasyllabary?
>
> I'm not convinced that you are wrong, but I'm not convinced that you
> are right, either. Could you elaborate?
The jamo clearly constitute an alphabet, which I think is Jungshik's
point. I'm not sure about the alphasyllabic status, but that has
more to do with a quibble on your categories -- more about that
separately.
>
> Of course, given that Hangul is not derived from Han either it may be
> that it does not belong in a category called "Sinitc scripts". I've
> defined this category as
>
> "The sinitic scripts are the scripts derived from the Chinese
> scripts, as well as a number of other scripts designed to resemble
> it graphically, or to be used together with it for various purposes."
I think your distinction between "type" and "category" is misleading.
By "type" you are classifying scripts based on their functional
organization.
By "category" you are, loosely, classifying scripts based on their
historic relationships.
I think you would be more successful if you separated out some of
the distinct forms of historic relationships:
1. Script B is an evolutionary descendant of Script A.
2. Script B is a de novo design influenced strongly by Script A.
3. Script B borrowed formal and/or functional characteristics of Script A.
and so on.
Clumping all this stuff together into a category tree is part of
what is leading you into these conundrums. It results in
oversimplifications.
>
> Hangul is clearly siniform, and so matching this definition.
It is siniform in some senses: the Hangul are laid out in square
boxes, a typographic practice derived from centuries of Han
typography; many of the individual jamo are based on pieces
of Han characters or on strokes derived from Han characters
(though not all), a practice derived from a common tradition
of brush-writing.
But in other senses, it is not at all siniform. It is alphabetic
in concept, and the Hangul syllables bear no relation whatsoever
to Han ideographs. This is quite different from the more obviously
siniform script developments, such as Xi Xia, which just lifted
the whole Gestalt of Han ideographs and invented a completely
new set for an unrelated language.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Oct 11 2001 - 16:36:51 EDT