Re: Ideographic Conlangs
|From:||Tim May <butsuri@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, November 28, 2002, 3:18|
Muke Tever writes:
> From: "Tim May" <butsuri@...>
> > Muke Tever writes:
> > > From: "Tim May" <butsuri@...>
> > > > Egyptian isn't ideographic, it's logographic. It's an important
> > > > distinction - all known scripts in human history have had a
> > > > phonetic component (there have been attempts* to _construct_
> > > > ideographic scripts, but I don't think any of them have achieved
> > > > completion, let alone been widely adopted).
> > >
> > > But the phonetics often become divorced from the script, and so the
> > > script doesn't synchronically have _any_ phonetic component. Isn't
> > > the Japanese use of kanji like this? One character, without any
> > > change in form, can stand for several different morphs of similar
> > > meaning (and probably different meaning too, but I'm not exactly
> > > accomplished enough in Japanese to know any).
> > >
> > This is true, but Japanese also contains phonetic characters*.
> In different scripts...
Well, that's debatable. You can define kana as seperate scripts
from kanji if you like, but ordinary written Japanese will always
contain some kana (unless it's just a place-name or something, not in
> But yeah, the Arabic numerals could go there too, being as 1234567890 are a
> widely-used script with no phonetic component (even within a single
> language--you could accept "1" being pronounced [thuw] but then what's it doing
> in "11"?)
> *peers extremely closely at what he wrote*
> Good heavens. I mean "1" being pronounced [wVn]. [thuw] indeed...
It would be an unfortunate idiosyncracy, to say the least. But I
quite agree with you that the numerals are logographic/ideographic.
I'm not so sure that I would classify them as a "script" by