Re: -eme and related suffixes
- From: Lee Sau Dan <danlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:52:29 +0800
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Peter> Why wouldn't the components be the graphemes, with the
Peter> strokes something like phonetic features?
Some strokes have variant forms, which can be replaced without
affecting the meaning. e.g. a diagonal stroke from upper-left to
lower-right can be replaced with a dot.
So, glyph shape<->phonetic feature; stroke<->phonemic feature
Peter> Why wouldn't the characters be the graphemes, since they're
Peter> the units that have actual functions in the writing system
Peter> itself? Writers don't recombine the strokes or the
Peter> components freely to make writing-units.
Because many components have variants, which can be freely replaced.
e.g. the water radical on the left, which contains 3 dots, could be
replaced by a vertical stroke in fast writing. The fire radicial,
which is 4 dots below, could also be replaced by a horizontal stroke.
The simplified "radicals" in the simplified character set is another
set of examples. It's still understood as the same character if you
replace a traditional component in a traditional character with its
simpiflied equivalent. Of course, that may not always result in an
official simplified character, but people would otherwise still
recognize it.
So, on this level, component<->phonetic feature; character<->phonemic
feature.
There are multiple levels of abstractions, beginning from the
"stroke", then "components" (which include radicals), then
"characters". Each abstraction level has elements which may have
variants that different only on the lower level.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: -eme and related suffixes
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: -eme and related suffixes
- Prev by Date: Re: "Kai" and "Atros" translation
- Next by Date: Re: Latin pronunciation puzzle
- Previous by thread: Re: -eme and related suffixes
- Next by thread: Re: -eme and related suffixes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
