Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Mar 2007 04:49:15 -0700
On Mar 15, 1:14 am, "Glenn" <gschex1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3月15日, 午後12:52, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
English has homophones that are spelled differently...
Possibly not for too much longer though, given the trend on the
internet to spell homophones interchageably.
Which part of the Japanese (or Chinese, for that matter) writing system
do you think is "ideographic", and why?
I suppose 上 (above) and 下 (below) would be a bit of a stretch, but
what about 一 (one), 二 (two), and 三 (three)? Would those not be
ideographs?
They're iconic. How is that relevant to whether they represent
morphemes or "ideas"?
.
- References:
- intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- From: 欲無言
- Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- From: Glenn
- intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- Prev by Date: Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- Next by Date: Re: Esperanto and Interlingua
- Previous by thread: Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- Next by thread: Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|