Lars, > | For instance, Korean Hangul is not only featural but also alphabetic > | and alphasyllabaric. > > How can this be? If a script uses diacritics out of temporal order to > indicate vowels it can't be an alphabet, and, similarly, if it does > not, how can it be an alphasyllabary? > > I'm not convinced that you are wrong, but I'm not convinced that you > are right, either. Could you elaborate?
The jamo clearly constitute an alphabet, which I think is Jungshik's point. I'm not sure about the alphasyllabic status, but that has more to do with a quibble on your categories -- more about that separately. > > Of course, given that Hangul is not derived from Han either it may be > that it does not belong in a category called "Sinitc scripts". I've > defined this category as > > "The sinitic scripts are the scripts derived from the Chinese > scripts, as well as a number of other scripts designed to resemble > it graphically, or to be used together with it for various purposes." I think your distinction between "type" and "category" is misleading. By "type" you are classifying scripts based on their functional organization. By "category" you are, loosely, classifying scripts based on their historic relationships. I think you would be more successful if you separated out some of the distinct forms of historic relationships: 1. Script B is an evolutionary descendant of Script A. 2. Script B is a de novo design influenced strongly by Script A. 3. Script B borrowed formal and/or functional characteristics of Script A. and so on. Clumping all this stuff together into a category tree is part of what is leading you into these conundrums. It results in oversimplifications. > > Hangul is clearly siniform, and so matching this definition. It is siniform in some senses: the Hangul are laid out in square boxes, a typographic practice derived from centuries of Han typography; many of the individual jamo are based on pieces of Han characters or on strokes derived from Han characters (though not all), a practice derived from a common tradition of brush-writing. But in other senses, it is not at all siniform. It is alphabetic in concept, and the Hangul syllables bear no relation whatsoever to Han ideographs. This is quite different from the more obviously siniform script developments, such as Xi Xia, which just lifted the whole Gestalt of Han ideographs and invented a completely new set for an unrelated language. --Ken
