> Perhaps that debunking was in the very book
> cited by Martin J. Dürst earlier in this thread.
Yes, starting on page 24.
https://books.google.com/books?id=hypplIDMd0IC=PA24=isbn:0824812077+Yukaghir=en=X=0ahUKEwj1n4r719zgAhWJn4MKHcdyCHIQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage=isbn%3A0824812077%20Yukaghir=false
>
http://historyview.blogspot.com/2011/10/yukaghir-girl-writes-love-letter.html
According to a comment, the Yukaghir love letter as semasiographic
communication was debunked by John DeFrancis in 1989 who asserted that
it was merely a prop in a Yukaghir parlor game. Perhaps that debunking
On 4/16/19 4:00 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
On 2019-04-16 7:09 AM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
All the examples you cite, where images stand for sounds, are typically
used in some of the oldest "ideographic" scripts. Egyptian definitely
has such concepts, and Han (CJK) does so,
I
suspect that this work would be jibber-jabber to any non-English
speaker unfamiliar with the original Haggadah. No matter how
otherwise fluent they might be in emoji communication.
You can't escape fundamental theses:
On 2019-04-16 7:09 AM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
All the examples you cite, where images stand for sounds, are typically
used in some of the oldest "ideographic" scripts. Egyptian definitely
has such concepts, and Han (CJK) does so, too, with most ideographs
consisting of a semantic
Hello Mark, others,
On 2019/04/16 12:18, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> Yes. But the sentences aren't just symbolic representations of the
> concepts or something. They are frequently direct
> transcriptions—usually by puns—for *English* sentences, so left-to-right
> makes sense. So
6 matches
Mail list logo
