Re: What is an alphabet? Re: Optimum number of symbols

Raymond Brown scripsit:

> Yes, I have a copy of the bopomofo before me right now  :)
Unfortunately, we don't have the same copies.

> I think it's because my copy divides the symbols up into 'consonants',
> 'terminals', and 'compound terminals' which has misled me.
It sounds like your "compound terminals" are bopomofo digraphs
such as "u an" which in Pinyin is wan/uan.

> But even among the plain 'terminals' some denote sounds ending in /n/ and
> /N/, and the two diphthongs written "ao" and "ai" in Pinyin are included.
Indeed, though writing a diphthong or even a di-consonant with one letter
is scarcely unknown in admittedly alphabetic scripts (consider English
"i" and "x").  As I said before, "ang" and "eng" represent nasalized
vowels which have /aN/ and /@N/ as allophones, leaving only the letters
"an" and "en" /@n/ as true VC letters.

>  The 'compound terminals' include triphthongs as well as diphthongs, i.e.
> some of the symbols are triphonemic.
I don't think any single bopomofo letter is triphonemic.

> 1. the use of 'terminal' and 'compound terminal'
I think they are just monograph and digraph terminals.

> 2. the notion that alphabetic scripts are approximately 'one character =
> one phoneme' (but that may be the result of recent threads).
I would say that alphabets attach equal weight to consonants and vowels,
representing them both with full letters (not marks, signs, or diacritics).

> >This point may be contrasted with the use of "yi" and "wu" in Pinyin to
> >write monomorphemic /i/ and /u/.
>
> If indeed they are monomorphemic.
Of course I should have said mono*phon*emic.

> Personally, I would regard them so, but
> I understand there are those who give [j] and [w] phonemic status (as,
> indeed, the Pinyin script suggests).
In other uses, yes, but I think it is generally agreed that "yi" and "wu"
are pronounced [i] and [u] and are monophonemic.

> In your reply on Saturday you gave helpful definitions to Philip Newton's
> query about abjads, abugidas & syllabaries.  Could you, so to speak, finish
> the job and give a similar definition to 'alphabet' which, on the one hand
> distinguishe it from abjads, and on the other hand makes it clear to an old
> duffer like me that the bopomofo is truly alphabetic.  I, at least, would
> find this very helpful.
I think the main point of an alphabet, as I said above, is the equal
consideration for vowels and consonants.  Bopomofo is certainly not
quite one-phoneme-one-character, but it's not that far from the idea,
and there is no special emphasis on consonants or de-emphasis of
vowels.  Tones, OTOH, are represented by diacritics, as in most
alphabets.

--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

Reply