Re: Ideographic Conlangs

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
complete sentences).

 > 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
themselves, though.