Re: Optimum number of symbols

Tim May <butsuri@...> wrote:

>Mike S. scripsit:
>
>>  Now the question that I will throw back to you is,
>> can the consonant and vowel parts in Hangul stand by themselves
>> the way letters in the Roman alphabet can?  Or do they always
>> appear together in composite characters?
>
>My knowledge of Hangul is far from complete, but to me this seems
>a somewhat arbitrary distinction.  You can either treat the consonant
>and vowel symbols as seperate characters which are arranged into
>clusters representing a syllable according to certain rules, or you
>can treat the resulting clusters as composite characters.  The former
>method is what is more normally done, and is probably more useful for
>most purposes, but I've looked at Korean font layouts where each
>syllable is given a seperate character (for obvious reasons).
I understand why you believe this is an arbitrary distinction, and
I might be inclined to say likewise, if not for the inordinate
amount of confusion that has arisen in recent days due to people
with subtle differences in definitions trying to express to one
another careful arguments.  Thus, what I am fishing for here is
a base definition we all can agree on.

It seems that, although not entirely clear, the script does
go to some lengths to indicate syllables in a way that an
alphabet is generally does not.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

John Cowan <jcowan@...> wrote:

>They always appear together in running text, but can stand separately
>in examples.  This is actually not too different from the behavior
>of Latin letters, which always stand together in running text too
>(neglecting the few single-letter words) but can be separated in
>examples.
That seems to support the position that it's an alphabet.
Still, aren't syllables always drawn in similar-sized boxes?
That would argue that syllables are graphically significant,
and thus the script is a syllabary, or does seem objectionable?

Replies