Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:John Cowan <jcowan@...>
Date:Tuesday, May 28, 2002, 16:05
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

Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>