[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Stroke harmony. Was: Has anyone been down this route before?
3/09/2004 12:38:45 AM, "Dennis S." <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>But is this the same thing? Each vowel is a distinct phoneme,
>whether it is front or back. Strokes can often stand by themselves.
>I'm not sure the concepts are analogous.
The concepts are obviously not analogous. But the objects (be they
vowel phonemes or strokes) behave in analogous ways.
>Are Chinese and Arabic scripts relevant here? Chinese characters
>are conventionally analyzed into strokes for classification.
No stroke harmony in Chinese.
>Arabic characters take on different forms depending
>on position within words.
Quite different. Different behaviour there.
>So in French "graphe`me" may mean either graph, glyph, or grapheme?
In rongorongo circles. I don't know any French Mayanists.
>I thought "grapheme" was the analogue of "phoneme",
>a set of marks on a writing surface that constitute a meaningful unit;
>"graph" was a single instance of a grapheme;
Yes, but the term is unfortunate because it's long been claimed
by mathematics in a totally unrelated meaning. You just think
of "graph" as in "graph theory" or "graph" as in "graph paper".
Even I can't help thinking like that, instinctively.
>"allograph" was an alternative form of a grapheme, as B for b .
>I'm not sure about "glyph".
English-speaking Mayanists use it. I don't know about
students of ancient manuscripts. Even Egyptologists
don't concur in their terminologies.
>Babs said it was the epigrapher's analogue for "grapheme".
>Yes. I've finally realized something.
>Cryptographers treat the VMs like a cipher.
>Linguists approach it as a language.
>Epigraphers and other students of writing are
>applying their own concepts.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: