Re: Digraphic letters (was: Dutch "ij")

Ray Brown wrote, quoting myself:

> > I think it's worth remembering that the English word "letter" can only
> > be literally translated into languages where one letter = one character.
>
> So letter is a synonym for grapheme or character?
No, because of (1) capitalisation, whereby one letter has two
characters and (2) punctuation, whereby non-letters have characters
too. *However* the English word "letter" does carry a connotation that
is incompatible with the idea of being digraphic.

Imagine that the Dutch (for example) had two seperate words, one of
which was the regular word translated "letter" and the other of which
denoted the thing that 'a' and 'A' are the same of, 'ij' is two of and
',' is not. Then, which of those two words would be a literal
translation of the English "letter"?

The only answer can be that it's a subjective matter and that neither
answer is correct, which proves my point.

> And how shall we persuade these grammarians that they have been
> misusing the English word 'letter'?
Misusing is the wrong word. I never said or implied anything about
"misusing". All conlangers know that translation is not an exact
science because words denoting complex ideas are rarely truly
identical in two languages, and all I'm doing is pointing out that
"letter" is an idea complex enough for this principle to apply. I feel
it's important not to fall victim to the illusion of objectivity.

Adrian.

Reply