Re: Optimum number of symbols

Mike S. writes:
 > On Thu, 23 May 2002 01:46:20 -0400, Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> wrote:
 >
 > >"Mike S." wrote:
 > >> Some scripts can be more featural than others.  I gather that Hangul
 > >> is one of the most highly featural--I think ppl often mistake it
 > >> for an alphabet.
 > >
 > >It IS an alphabet, albeit one with an unusual layout.
 >
 > That's what I said!  An alphabet with an unusual layout.  Exactly.
 >
 > Unfortunately, there might be different opinions on the matter,
 > if I gather correctly.  It seems that whether or not a script is
 > an alphabet or a syllabary is determined by what a basic character
 > of the script (grapheme) as whole represents, not what its parts
 > represent.   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).