>> Don't let that discourage you too
>> much: every iconic system for representing language
has either
>> gone that direction or died.
>Wasn't Hangul originally iconic? Did it deviate? It obviously
hasn't died.
I might be wrong on this - I'm no expert on Hangul, but as far
as I'm aware the assumption of iconicity being used in the
design of Hangul is only speculative; I don't know if there is
any documentary evidence to support this. I realise that this
is the basis for Hangul often being referred to as "featural",
but it works only (if at all) for points of articulation of
consonants. As I recall, for vowels, any assumed iconicity is
based on some pretty abstract metaphors. Regardless of whether
or not iconicity was a factor in the way King Seychong (or his
wise men) invented Hangul, I doubt that it is at all a factor
in how children are taught to read Korean, or in how anybody
mentally interprets the characters in the reading process (but
with fluent reading - chunking - or when encountering new
words). So, in that sense, I'd say (if my assumptions above)
that it has come to be treated as abstract (if it wasn't always
so).
Again, my knowledge of Korean and of Hangul is limited, so any
experts on the history of Hangul out there can please feel free
to correct me on this.
If I am wrong, then I'll revise the initial statement to say,
"... nearly every iconic system...".
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT