> --- "Karapcik, Mike" <Karapcik@...>
> wrote:
> > I don't know, honestly. However, Sanskrit shows
> a
> > lot of linguistic
> > planning in the alphabet, so this probably made
> > sense to them.
> > As a "sort-of example", in Japanese, written
> text
> > is one continuous
> > string of characters. When we asked our sensei
> about
> > this (college class),
> > he said, "You don't break what you say when
> > speaking. So why when writing?".
> > I would imagine there was a similar mentality in
> > Sanskrit.
>
> Neither do I know about Sanskrit, but with Japanese,
> even though you get a long string of words with
> division, you tend to be able to recognize word
> beginnings & endings quickly by the use of the
> characters. As a very "general" rule, kanji comes
> up
> front for the real word meaning, while the kana
> script
> falls in between or at the back for indicating
> necessary sounds and/or grammatical constructions
> (*good common exception would, of course, be with
> the
> honorific o- or go-, which prefixes itself the
> words).
>
> Hope I didn't end up breaking the focus of this
> conversation, but just wanted to note that!
>
> Matt33
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
>
http://personals.yahoo.com