Re: Old Languages

--- "Karapcik, Mike" <Karapcik@...> wrote:
>    I don't know, honestly. However, Sanskrit shows a
> lot of linguistic
> planning in the alphabet, so this probably made
> sense to them.
>    As a "sort-of example", in Japanese, written text
> is one continuous
> string of characters. When we asked our sensei about
> this (college class),
> he said, "You don't break what you say when
> speaking. So why when writing?".
> I would imagine there was a similar mentality in
> Sanskrit.
Neither do I know about Sanskrit, but with Japanese,
even though you get a long string of words with
division, you tend to be able to recognize word
beginnings & endings quickly by the use of the
characters.  As a very "general" rule, kanji comes up
front for the real word meaning, while the kana script
falls in between or at the back for indicating
necessary sounds and/or grammatical constructions
(*good common exception would, of course, be with the
honorific o- or go-, which prefixes itself the words).

Hope I didn't end up breaking the focus of this
conversation, but just wanted to note that!

Matt33

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Replies