At 18:20 +0200 2001-10-13, Lars Marius Garshol wrote: >| Yes, it's my principal point that Hangul is an alphabetic script >| because Jamo is an alphabet. > >I can sympathize with that point of view, and certainly agree that >Jamo could have been used as an alphabet like all the others. That is >not how it is used, however.
Of course it is. The principle feature of an alphabet is that it has symbols denoting consonants and vowels. Linear presentation of these, whether horizontal or vertical, is not the underlying feature. Syllable clustering of alphabetic letters in Hangul is a typographic feature of the script. It takes nothing away from its alphabet-nature. >If you look at the other alphabets they >all follow a very similar model where the basic symbols follow one >another linearly, each denoting a single letter. The basic symbols ARE the letters. They denote, generally, single sounds. (Other practices of alphabets, such as the use of silent letters as in Irish gcomhad ['go:@d] or English knot [not], are irrelevant here.) >Hangul does not fit >this model at all. Because of this I think it is misleading to call >Hangul an alphabet, even though the basic symbols, the Jamo, may be >alphabetic. Hangul is very, very different from all the true syllabaries, found in Canada and West Africa. Ethiopic has an alphabetic origin, but Cherokee and Linear B and Cypriot all have individual signs for individual syllables. Note that ALL of these write linearly, just as alphabets do in your view. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com 15 Port Chaeimhghein �ochtarach; Baile �tha Cliath 2; �ire/Ireland Telephone +353 86 807 9169 *** Fax +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement)
