Re: Basque & Katzner's Languages of the World
|From:||Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, November 15, 2001, 8:43|
En réponse à John Cowan <jcowan@...>:
> Peter T. Daniels says it isn't an alphabet but a featural script
> like Gregg or Pitman shorthands or Shavian (or Tengwar, which
> is otherwise abjad-like), partly IMO
> because he is committed to the notion that only scripts
> descended from Greek (or stimulus-diffused from Greek-descended
> scripts) are alphabetic.
Indeed, I find quite a chauvinistic view to claim that Hangul is not an
alphabet. Consonnants and vowels are both equally represented by different
signs, so it's an alphabet. At least, that's the definition we have in French
dictionnaries. Whether those signs are put together in line or grouped in
syllable-blocks is irrelevant.
In short, according to the accepted definition of an alphabet, Hangul is one.
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.