Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: Lunatic orthography (was Re: Esperanto as a stepping stone?
Message-ID: <D2F5zC.Axr@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <3f0bipINNook@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> <1995Jan12.190214.14090@midway.uchicago.edu> <3f4uh8INN4na@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 23:45:09 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <3f4uh8INN4na@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:
>In article <1995Jan12.190214.14090@midway.uchicago.edu>, deb5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
><In article <3f0bipINNook@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:
><>_Kanji_ are not "logographs".
><
><_The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language_, p. 200:
><
><"Logographic writing systems are those where the graphemes represent words.
[...]
>Chinese characters and _kanji_ do not represent words.

Quite right.  But this doesn't mean that the Chinese script is not
logographic, merely that it doesn't match _tCEoL_'s definition of a
logographic writing system.  That definition is unusable, of course,
because it relies on an ill-defined concept, namely `word'.  Let's
substitute `morpheme' for it.  What will the verdict be now, Scott?

-- 
`Don't know whit ye're bletherin aboot', said Peter.    (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
