Re: Hangul script type: (was Re: [OT] ANN: Site about scripts)

From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Mon Oct 15 2001 - 12:54:31 EDT


At 18:20 +0200 2001-10-13, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>| Yes, it's my principal point that Hangul is an alphabetic script
>| because Jamo is an alphabet.
>
>I can sympathize with that point of view, and certainly agree that
>Jamo could have been used as an alphabet like all the others. That is
>not how it is used, however.

Of course it is. The principle feature of an alphabet is that it has
symbols denoting consonants and vowels. Linear presentation of these,
whether horizontal or vertical, is not the underlying feature.
Syllable clustering of alphabetic letters in Hangul is a typographic
feature of the script. It takes nothing away from its alphabet-nature.

>If you look at the other alphabets they
>all follow a very similar model where the basic symbols follow one
>another linearly, each denoting a single letter.

The basic symbols ARE the letters. They denote, generally, single
sounds. (Other practices of alphabets, such as the use of silent
letters as in Irish gcomhad ['go:@d] or English knot [not], are
irrelevant here.)

>Hangul does not fit
>this model at all. Because of this I think it is misleading to call
>Hangul an alphabet, even though the basic symbols, the Jamo, may be
>alphabetic.

Hangul is very, very different from all the true syllabaries, found
in Canada and West Africa. Ethiopic has an alphabetic origin, but
Cherokee and Linear B and Cypriot all have individual signs for
individual syllables. Note that ALL of these write linearly, just as
alphabets do in your view.

-- 
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Telephone +353 86 807 9169 *** Fax +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 22:35:53 EDT