Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!swrinde!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: <D2I4vL.Ix1@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <3f4uh8INN4na@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> <D2F5zC.Axr@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3fa9ihINNa51@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 14:14:06 GMT
Lines: 17

In article <3fa9ihINNa51@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:
>In article <D2F5zC.Axr@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
><[...] the Chinese script [...] 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?
>
>Verdict:  Still wrong, but close enough.

Could you give an example of a logographic writing system, then,
or a logographic part of a writing system?

-- 
`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
