<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P><BR><BR></P>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Three other old canards from an economist, if someone in literature or science wants to correct me. I can't remember if I've read these somewhere or made them up.</P></DIV>
<P>1. It think it is true that East Asian scientific development lapsed due to the lack of a zero in their original counting system, just as it did among the Latins. But the Latins learned the zero early on from the Arabs who learned it from the Zoroastrians. East Asians were more isolated and didn't learn it until much later. So there was no algebra, calculus etc. in China until the modern era.<BR></P></DIV>
<P>2. Also, it seems as though Chinese, but not Korean or Japanese, is hindered by its monosyllabic nature--every sound has a meaning. This makes an alphabet system difficult because there are only so many one syllable sounds one can make. As polysyllabic languages add vocabulary, they simply add syllables to make new and longer words. But with Chinese you end up having to put more and more distinct words (sounds) together to make a new word. With so many homonyms, reading the language in pinyin or in any alphabet is a bit like trying to read vanity license plates.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Korean and Japanese are, of course, like English, made up of longer words, with each syllable often having no distinct meaning. So they lend themselves to alphabetized writing. But both have borrowed so many one syllable Chinese words, simply using Hangul, or Latin letters, doesn't work so well. (Try reading North Korean where characters are prohibited.) So both languages tend to keep using Chinese characters for the one syllable words borrowed from China. And Japan adds an extra step by using a different alphabet for other borrowed words. Its not elegant but it works. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>3. Why is Chinese monosyllabic? Probably because it set a very early standard for language, much like Microsoft with its computer language. Once set, it takes a revolution to destroy it and start up new with something better. China has never been quite so uprooted so as to eliminate its language and by now it is very firmly set. Set, at least, until computer writing makes everyone forget how to write a character.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>From: Yuh Ji-Yeon <J-YUH@NORTHWESTERN.EDU></P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [KS] NYTimes.com Article: Writing as a Block for Asians
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 09:01:48 -0500
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Shouldn't someone write a letter to the NYT and point out that
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Korean hangul is an alphabet system with "abstractions" in which
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>letters are either consonants or vowels and do not represent
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>syllables?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>I also have a question for linguists out there: on what basis can it
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>be said that a letter like A or B or like the hangul giuk is more
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>abstract than a Japanese syllable like ah or no?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>best,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Yuh Ji-Yeon
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>At 09:57 ¿ÀÀü 2003-05-05 -0400, you wrote:
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>Dear listmembers,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>since we have had quite some discussion on language etc. going on
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>on this list, I think the follwing article might be of some
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>interest. It is about the controversial connection between language
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>and thought.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>Cheers,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>Ruediger
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>New York Times (www.nytimes.com)
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>Writing as a Block for Asians
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>May 3, 2003
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>By EMILY EAKIN
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>A better understanding of Asian writing systems has not
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>stopped Western experts from making grand claims about
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>their virtues and limitations.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/arts/03ASIA.html?ex=1053142398&ei=1&en=f1a3637a7f455b2a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Add photos to your messages with <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMIENUS/2749??PS=">MSN 8. </a> Get 2 months FREE*.</html>