Re: Optimum number of symbols

Mike S. scripsit:

> Still, aren't syllables always drawn in similar-sized boxes?
Yes, primarily for compatibility with Chinese layout conventions.
Chinese text traditionally is laid out on a fixed square grid, with
each character centered on a grid intersection (sort of like Go).
The Hangul syllables were designed to fit smoothly into that sort
of layout.  In more modern times, Western-style layout with space
characters is normal.

> That would argue that syllables are graphically significant,
> and thus the script is a syllabary, or does seem objectionable?
I think so.  I prefer to reserve the term "syllabary" only for what
you have been calling a "non-featural syllabary", and use the
terms "abjad" and "abugida" otherwise.  Hangul is clearly none of these:
it is an alphabet.

--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

Reply