Both English and Hebrew have different characters for the script (cursive) form
and the printed form. Are there other languages for which this is true?
I’m also curious whether there are other character sets that have a notion of upper
and lower case (e.g., sanskrit?).
Thanks,
Bob
krov…@cs.umass.edu
The Cyrillic handwritten alphabet is different from its typed/printed alphabet.
You said that English has a different handwritten alphabet; that is certainly
true, but it would be far better to write that the *Roman* alphabet differs
in its handwritten and printed forms. That takes care of every other language
which uses the same symbols as English.
Japanese, I know, has Kata-Kana and Hira-Kana; many words can be expressed
in both alphabets, but I’m not sure that 100% of the vocabulary is duplicative.
Anyone out there know?
-S
In article <1991Mar10.183456.11…@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> j…@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Shawn Landres) writes:
>Japanese, I know, has Kata-Kana and Hira-Kana; many words can be expressed
>in both alphabets, but I’m not sure that 100% of the vocabulary is duplicative.
>Anyone out there know?
Yes. Katakana and hiragana can, in principle, represent exactly the same
range of words. There are, however, conventions for their use that
tend to restrict the range of use of katakana. In normal text any
word can be written in hiragana (though many are typically written at
least partially in kanzi (Chinese characters)), but only certain
words are written in katakana. These include foreign loans and
the common names of animals in scientific material.
These conventions are fairly recent. I have read older books in which
katakana are used as the default.
Bill
krov…@cs.umass.edu (Bob Krovetz) writes:
>Both English and Hebrew have different characters for the script (cursive) form
>and the printed form. Are there other languages for which this is true?
There’s a script Cyrillic, which seems to me to be used whenever one uses
italics in English. There is a script Greek (psi looks like a cursive y,
kappa like a u, pi like an omega with a loop on top), which seems to be dying
out, and you’ll still see Byzantine script (the parent of Cyrillic, with
stacks of ligatures) on icons. Both these langs have caps, though Cyrillic’s
are just bigger small case letters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nick S. Nicholas, "Rode like foam on the river of pity
Depts. of CompSci & ElecEng, Turned its tide to strength
University of Melbourne, Australia. Healed the hole that ripped in living"
nsn@{mullian.ee|mullauna.cs|ecr}.mu.oz.au – S. Vega, Book Of Dreams
_______________________________________________________________________________
In article <1991Mar10.183456.11…@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
j…@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Shawn Landres) writes:
>Japanese, I know, has Kata-Kana and Hira-Kana; many words can be expressed
>in both alphabets, but I’m not sure that 100% of the vocabulary is
>duplicative. Anyone out there know? [J. Shawn Landres]
Besides Chinese Hieroglyphics (Kanji), Japanese has two syllabaries, written
with squiggles. They are Pointy Squiggles (Katakana) and Round Squiggles
(Hiragana). Round Squiggles are for Real Japanese words, and the names
of Real Japanese people. Words taken from "foreign" (i.e., not Japanese)
languages, and the names of "foreigners" (even Americans), don’t rate
Round Squiggles, and are instead written in Pointy Squiggles.
I read a few months ago about a Japanese-American correspondent who
writes in California. When Japanese newspapers quote him, they print
his name in Pointy Squiggles in order to warn their readers that
even though the man’s name *sounds* Japanese, he’s really not Japanese.
— Matt Rosenblatt
(m…@amsaa.brl.mil)
"King Arthur sleeps at Nikko Hill
Where Iyeyasu lies,
And there the broad Pendragon flag
In deathless splendor flies."
– Vachel Lindsay
>>>>> "MR" == Matt Rosenblatt <m…@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil> writes:
MR> Besides Chinese Hieroglyphics (Kanji), Japanese has two
MR> syllabaries, written with squiggles. They are Pointy Squiggles
MR> (Katakana) and Round Squiggles (Hiragana). Round Squiggles are
MR> for Real Japanese words, and the names of Real Japanese people.
MR> Words taken from "foreign" (i.e., not Japanese) languages, and the
MR> names of "foreigners" (even Americans), don’t rate Round
MR> Squiggles, and are instead written in Pointy Squiggles.
MR> I read a few months ago about a Japanese-American correspondent
MR> who writes in California. When Japanese newspapers quote him,
MR> they print his name in Pointy Squiggles in order to warn their
MR> readers that even though the man’s name *sounds* Japanese, he’s
MR> really not Japanese.
Jim McCawley told a story about a time when he was living in Japan.
He spoke fluent Japanese, and his landlord knew this, and knew that
Jim could read and write Hiragana. But if he left a note for his
landlord, in Hiragana, the reply would invariably be in Katakana.
—
Mitch Marks mitch…@cs.UChicago.EDU
–But…but…I can see with my own two eyes that it’s…
–Hey, who’re you gonna believe: *me* or your own two eyes?
In article <1991Mar10.183456.11…@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> j…@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Shawn Landres) writes:
>The Cyrillic handwritten alphabet is different from its typed/printed alphabet.
Yes, but not as radically different. The differences between hadwritten
and printed Hebrew characters are enormous — many of the letters have
little or no visual relationship between the two forms. (I’ve
experienced learning both alphabets in similar circumstances: as a
beginner, about 2 years apart, in a university setting, using both
forms.)
My beloved Yiddish teacher, Dr. Herbert Paper, often astutely pointed
out that it’s impossible to read handwriting until you already know
the language well. I think that’s true, _especially_ for handwriting
(as opposed to printing).
Tom
gel…@ucunix.san.uc.edu
t_gel…@usite-next.uchicago.edu
——————————————————————————
T. (Thomas) Geller Biases: Bisexual, feminist-supportive,
P.O. Box 20092 open-border, free-information civil
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 libertarian Esperantist with explosives.
"polyglot" on IRC You’d _better_ be scared!
In article <27…@dime.cs.umass.edu> krov…@cs.umass.edu (Bob Krovetz) writes:
>Both English and Hebrew have different characters for the script (cursive) form
>and the printed form. Are there other languages for which this is true?
>I’m also curious whether there are other character sets that have a notion of upper
>and lower case (e.g., sanskrit?).
>Thanks,
>Bob
I imagine all languages have some diff. between the printed and written forms,
but it is interesting to ask how different the two are.
Printed and written Cyrillic are pretty distinct. There are several letters
whose written forms probably couldn’t be predicted from the printed ones.
Bengali is another one I know of where the printed and written forms are
fairly different — I’d imagine most alphabets based on Devanagari are
similar.
Rough and ready hypothesis (based on 4 examples) — the longer a language
has been printed, the more different the written form is.
Aaron
In article <7…@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil> m…@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil
(Matt Rosenblatt) writes on katakana and hiragana:
>They are Pointy Squiggles (Katakana) and Round Squiggles (Hiragana). Round
>Squiggles are for Real Japanese words, and the names of Real Japanese people.
>Words taken from "foreign" (i.e., not Japanese) languages, and the names of
>"foreigners" (even Americans), don’t rate Round Squiggles…
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*Even* Americans! That’s unbelievable! I mean, it’s understandable
that Peruvian president Fujimori would be a "foreigner" in Japan.
But that, happening to an American!
Celso Alvarez
sp299…@violet.berkeley.edu
In article <1991Mar12.034128.14…@agate.berkeley.edu> sp299…@violet.berkeley.edu
(Celso Alvarez) writes:
>In article <7…@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil> m…@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil
>(Matt Rosenblatt) writes on katakana and hiragana:
>>They are Pointy Squiggles (Katakana) and Round Squiggles (Hiragana).
>>Round Squiggles are for Real Japanese words, and the names of Real
>>Japanese people. Words taken from "foreign" (i.e., not Japanese)
>>languages, and the names of "foreigners" (even Americans), don’t
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>rate Round Squiggles… [Matt Rosenblatt]
>*Even* Americans! That’s unbelievable! I mean, it’s understandable
>that Peruvian president Fujimori would be a "foreigner" in Japan.
>But that, happening to an American! [Celso Alvarez]
There’s the "floating" definition of the word "foreigner," and there’s
the "fixed" definition. According to the floating definition, a
foreigner is someone who is not in his own country, so that President
Fujimori would be a foreigner in Japan or in the United States. According
to the fixed definition that I use, a foreigner is someone who is not
an American, regardless of where he happens to be, and an American cannot
be a foreigner, no matter what country he is visiting. I put the word
"foreign" in inverted commas, and followed it with the explanation "(i.e.,
not Japanese)," so that the reader would understand that even perfectly
good English words like "baseball" and "salaried man" are regarded as
"foreign" by the Japanese. And I put the word "foreigners" in quotation
marks to indicate that the Japanese write not only such foreign names
as "Fujimori" and "Major" and "Mitterrand" in Pointy Squiggles, but also
such American names as "Alvarez" and "Rosenblatt."
— Matt Rosenblatt
(m…@amsaa.brl.mil)
gb…@leah.albany.edu (BROADWELL GEORGE AARON) writes:
>Bengali is another one I know of where the printed and written forms are
>fairly different — I’d imagine most alphabets based on Devanagari are
>similar.
Well, I find that the only difficulty in understanding written Hindi
). But the basic shapes
is that I have not seen much of it, and what I have seen is a bit
scrawled (rather like my handwriting
seem to match printed Hindi quite well. This is definitely not so
re Bengali, as a look at Robindranath Tagore’s handwriting shows.
–
Regards,
Ron House. (s64…@zeus.usq.edu.au)
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
In article <MITCHELL.91Mar11131…@gluttony.uchicago.edu>
mitch…@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks) writes:
>Jim McCawley told a story about a time when he was living in Japan.
>He spoke fluent Japanese, and his landlord knew this, and knew that
>Jim could read and write Hiragana. But if he left a note for his
>landlord, in Hiragana, the reply would invariably be in Katakana.
That sounds to me like `speech divergence’ in out-group interaction
(except that here the medium is the written word). The standard
interpretation views divergence as a strategy to mark one’s
disidentification from the interlocutor — code choice marks group
boundaries.
But why assume that the social meanings of Hiragana as the in-group
written code vs. Katakana as the outsiders’ code are the only ones at
work here? An alternative explanation is that McCawley’s attempt to
accommodate is interpreted by an in-group member as condescending.
In this case, Katakana would channel *camaraderie*, not distance,
meaning `I can write in "your" code, too’.
Just three thoughts,
-Celso Alvarez
sp299…@violet.berkeley.edu
MR> Words taken from "foreign" (i.e., not Japanese) languages, and the
MR>names of "foreigners" (even Americans), don’t rate Round Squiggles…
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CA> *Even* Americans! That’s unbelievable!…
MR> According to the fixed definition [of "foreigner"] that I use,
MR> [explanation deleted]
I just think you meant "including Americans", or "also Americans".
There is a fine distinction between "even" and "including":
MR> even perfectly good English words like "baseball" and "salaried man"
^^^^
MR> are regarded as "foreign" by the Japanese.
I don’t know why it should be otherwise. If you meant "also perfectly
good English words", I understand. The way I see it, "even" raises the
expectation that Americans (and English words) should be considered by
Japanese differently from other non-nationals (or borrowings).
Celso Alvarez
sp299…@violet.berkeley.edu
chinese and japanese both use "running characters", basically the printed
character with all the strokes connected and a few left out. as a current
student of japanese, i have to say that it is a total nightmare. i’ve
given up trying to predict them, and now just memorize the running forms
separately.
joe
In article <MITCHELL.91Mar11131…@gluttony.uchicago.edu> mitch…@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks) writes:
>Jim McCawley told a story about a time when he was living in Japan.
>He spoke fluent Japanese, and his landlord knew this, and knew that
>Jim could read and write Hiragana. But if he left a note for his
>landlord, in Hiragana, the reply would invariably be in Katakana.
What should he expect? People don’t write entirely in hiragana. Had I been
the landlord, I might not have bothered to *read* a note written entirely
in kana.
–Scott
–
Scott Horne …!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
ho…@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ
Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.
I know that script characters differ-
ing from print exist in at least 4
alphabets: Roman, Greek, Cyrillic,
and Hebrew. Upper/lower case dis-
tinctions exist in the first 3 of
these but not in Hebrew, but they
also exist in Armenian and Georgian,
which have their own scripts.
In article <1991Mar11.215136.15…@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, geller@ucunix (Thomas Matthew Geller) writes:
>The differences between hadwritten and printed Hebrew characters are enormous
>–many of the letters have little or no visual relationship between the two
>forms.
It’s probably been 20 years since I looked at Hebrew script, but as I recall it
. The paperback Hebrew-English/
is based on the Canaanite syllabary that in Phoenician form gives us the Greek
alphabet (and from there, everything
English-Hebrew dictionary I still have at home shows both the Aramaic character
("Hebrew" in most people’s experience) and the script form.
Any Hebraicists out there to confirm/deny my hypothesis? (I’m mostly an Indo-
Europeanist; so sue me.
Rich Alderson
alder…@leland.stanford.edu
In article <40…@cup.portal.com>, EZ-as-pi@cup (Bruce Robert Gilson) writes:
>I know that script characters differing from print exist in at least 4
>alphabets: Roman, Greek, Cyrillic, and Hebrew. Upper/lower case distinctions
>exist in the first 3 of these but not in Hebrew, but they also exist in
>Armenian and Georgian, which have their own scripts.
"Upper-case" characters exist in Georgian (gruzhinskiy iazyk, kartuli ena) only
on the periphery of the writing system. They are not used in the normal ortho-
graphy, but only in things like titles of books and such. They are decorative
variants of the normal forms.
(I studied Georgian as my "funny language" at Chicago. The above is the gist
of what we were told in class.)
Rich Alderson
alder…@leland.stanford.edu
In article <154…@tiger.oxy.edu> ledbe…@oxy.edu (Byron Joe Ledbetter) writes:
>chinese and japanese both use "running characters", basically the printed
>character with all the strokes connected and a few left out. as a current
>student of japanese, i have to say that it is a total nightmare.
As someone who writes Chinese in a very "running" style, I have to say that it
is not a nightmare at all. Look at your own English handwriting. Having
nightmares yet? No? Then look at mine. :-)
–Scott
–
Scott Horne …!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
ho…@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ
Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.