[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Tom Lord wrote:
> > From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Tom Lord wrote:
> >> Programmers building global computing environments have need for
> >> certain categories of characters which historically, are of little or
> >> no interest to linguists. One of these categories is comprised of
> >> many of the characters used to write words, whether those characters
> >> are alphabetic, syllabic, or ideographic. Linguistics hasn't given
> >> us a term for that category.
> > Well, actually it has. Linguists call these categories "glyphs" or
> > "graphemes", usually with varying degrees of precision or varying
> > exact meaning depending on the context or speaker.
>Um, I _think_ you are wrong. Are you _certain_ of what you say?
>I'm not aware of what specific technical meaning "glyph" or "grapheme"
>may have in academic linguistics, but I would be quite surprised to
>find that it excluded, say, digits, punctuation, and other marks which
>do not constitute "words" in the (loose) sense used in computing.
No, neither 'glyphs' nor 'graphemes' excludes punctuation, digits,
etc. The distinction between them is about whether they are a
concrete shape (a glyph) or a 'minimum ideal unit of written language'
(a grapheme). An alphabet is a set of graphemes. A particular
inscription is a set of glyphs.
Linguists talk about alphabets, syllabaries, ideograph sets, etc, and
have had little need of words that lump these together but leave out
punctuation and digits.