Invention of the Alphabet

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Dennis

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 1:22:26 AM7/30/05
to
I just updated my website on the Invention of the Alphabet:

http://www.geocities.com/ctesibos/alphabet/index.html

although it's still a bit ragged. I made use of recent
remarks made here. I would appreciate any comments!

Dennis

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 8:13:54 AM7/30/05
to

You seem not to have ever read anything I've written, or you couldn't
include the spurious commonplace "The Greek language cannot be
represented nearly as well without vowels as the Semitic languages can,
so it may have been done out of necessity." If that were true, how would
it be possible for Persian (and many other Iranian languages) to be
written with varieties of Aramaic scripts?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Dennis

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 12:53:31 AM7/31/05
to
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

True. It's also true that many shorthand systems leave out
vowels.

However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
word divisions, as was the custom at first.

I'm sure you can understand this.

M sr y cn ndrstnd ths

Msrycnndrstndths

I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.

http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm

Is Persian written without word divisions? How about Urdu?
I doubt it, though I don't know.

Dennis

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 9:56:38 AM7/31/05
to
Dennis wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> I just updated my website on the Invention of the Alphabet:
> >>
> >>http://www.geocities.com/ctesibos/alphabet/index.html
> >>
> >>although it's still a bit ragged. I made use of recent
> >>remarks made here. I would appreciate any comments!
> >
> > You seem not to have ever read anything I've written, or you couldn't
> > include the spurious commonplace "The Greek language cannot be
> > represented nearly as well without vowels as the Semitic languages can,
> > so it may have been done out of necessity." If that were true, how would
> > it be possible for Persian (and many other Iranian languages) to be
> > written with varieties of Aramaic scripts?
>
> True. It's also true that many shorthand systems leave out vowels.

If you don't transcribe your "notes" within a few days, you can't read
them. This has nothing to do with omitted vowels, however.

> However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
> Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
> word divisions, as was the custom at first.
>
> I'm sure you can understand this.
>
> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
>
> Msrycnndrstndths

If you're going to do this silly exercise, don't leave out notation for
initial vowels (and don't use digraphs):

@mSrycn@ndrstndDs.

> I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
> with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
> about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
> wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.
>
> http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm
>
> Is Persian written without word divisions? How about Urdu?
> I doubt it, though I don't know.

Persian and Urdu are written with the Arabic script, which marks the
ends of words by means other than additional space.

What, though, is a word?

Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
either script.

Joachim Pense

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 4:09:09 PM7/31/05
to
Peter T. Daniels:

>
> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
> either script.

People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in particular)
for exactly that reason.

Joachim

Prai Jei

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 4:40:56 PM7/31/05
to
Dennis (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<dchlg...@enews4.newsguy.com>:

> I'm sure you can understand this.
>
> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
>
> Msrycnndrstndths

A more appropriate rendering would be

¿ ¿m sr y¿ cn ¿ndrstnd ths

where an additional character (chosen to be devoid of any accepted
pronunciation) indicates a "silent" consonant (cf. Hebrew aleph, Arabic
alif) i.e. a vowel without a consonant sound before it.
--
A couple of questions. How do I stop the wires short-circuiting, and what's
this nylon washer for?

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 5:45:53 PM7/31/05
to

Where did you get such reports?

Alan

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 6:44:21 PM7/31/05
to

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:42ECD8...@worldnet.att.net...>

> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
> either script.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Am I misunderstanding you? Thai "script" may very well have no word
divisions, but how can you say the same for Chinese? Every word has its own
character and all characters are distinct and stand independent of one
another. Whether the Chinese text is written top-to-bottom, right-to-left,
or left-to-right, even someone totally unfamiliar with Chinese would
certainly be able to perceive the boundaries between the words.


Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 10:57:14 PM7/31/05
to

If all the boundaries are identical, then there are no boundaries.

Anyway, in Modern Chinese most "words" are two characters, and there
most certainly is not extra space, or anything else, to distinguish
them.

Harlan Messinger

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 11:01:04 PM7/31/05
to
Alan wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:42ECD8...@worldnet.att.net...>
>
>>Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
>>either script.
>>--
>>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>
>
> Am I misunderstanding you? Thai "script" may very well have no word
> divisions, but how can you say the same for Chinese? Every word has its own
> character

That's a misconception. Many words in Chinese consist of multiple
syllables/characters, such as Chong1guo2, the name for China, or
ci2dian3, a word for "dictionary", or fu2wu4yuan2, a word meaning "waiter".

Dennis

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:37:48 AM8/1/05
to
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
>>Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
>>word divisions, as was the custom at first.
>>
>> I'm sure you can understand this.
>>
>> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
>>
>> Msrycnndrstndths
>
> If you're going to do this silly exercise, don't leave out notation for
> initial vowels (and don't use digraphs):
>
> @mSrycn@ndrstndDs.

I'll have to give this some more thought. As you know,
that leaves room for a lot of ambiguity. I think Woodard
talked about all this in his book, that Greek can indeed be
written without vowels, and pointing out that ambiguities
arise in Semitic as well without vowels. However, would you
agree that vowels are needed more in Greek and Indo-European
languages in general than in Semitic ones? I did say that
it was relative, after all.

>> I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
>>with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
>>about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
>>wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.
>>
>>http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm

Obviously something like Ukrainian is worse without vowels,
since it has more consonant clusters. That is how this
fellow gets the freedom to read what he wants.

>> Is Persian written without word divisions? How about Urdu?
>> I doubt it, though I don't know.
>
>
> Persian and Urdu are written with the Arabic script, which marks the
> ends of words by means other than additional space.
>
> What, though, is a word?
>
> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
> either script.

I don't think that's a proper comparison. Thai is pretty
phonemic, while Chinese is logographic. So there all you
lack is the word divisions. And, of course, we've already
said that ancient Greek writing lacked word divisions.
AFAIK, Etruscan was the only thing from that time period
that did include them.

The question of what is a word does indeed arise there. I
think the Chinese consider each syllable a word, but in fact
multi-syllable units often form words. I'm not sure that's
germane to this discussion.

Dennis

Richard Herring

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 5:30:32 AM8/1/05
to
In message <dck8u...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Dennis
<tsalag...@asus.net> writes

Ahem. Thai writing is not phonemic, *unless* you can first identify the
segment boundaries, which in general you can't do without additional
information.

>while Chinese is logographic. So there all you lack is the word
>divisions. And, of course, we've already said that ancient Greek
>writing lacked word divisions. AFAIK, Etruscan was the only thing from
>that time period that did include them.
>
> The question of what is a word does indeed arise there. I think
>the Chinese consider each syllable a word, but in fact multi-syllable
>units often form words. I'm not sure that's germane to this discussion.
>

--
Richard Herring

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 9:56:25 AM8/1/05
to

I'm not sure what "this discussion" is -- you lumped together
vowellessness and spacelessness, which are two different and unrelated
things. IE languages _have been written_ vowellessly for millennia, so
that's not an interesting topic; and many languages _are still written_
spacelessly, suggesting that if English didn't have spaces, it wouldn't
be a terrible burden to learn to read it that way.

Spacelessness in Greek is less problematic because very few letters can
be word-final, and spacelessness in the Arabic family of scripts is less
problematic because of word-final flourishes.

António Marques

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 9:30:18 AM8/1/05
to
Dennis wrote:

> And, of course, we've already said that ancient Greek writing lacked
> word divisions. AFAIK, Etruscan was the only thing from that time
> period that did include them.

Damn, such an advanced çanguages and look where it's gone.
--
am

laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 11:25:12 AM8/1/05
to
>>>>> "Harlan" == Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes:

>>> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word
>>> divisions in either script. -- Peter T. Daniels
>>> gram...@att.net
>> Am I misunderstanding you? Thai "script" may very well have no
>> word divisions, but how can you say the same for Chinese? Every
>> word has its own character

Harlan> That's a misconception. Many words in Chinese consist of
Harlan> multiple syllables/characters, such as Chong1guo2, the
Harlan> name for China,

Aren't Chong1 and guo2 themselves root-words? It's comparable to
"United Kingdom". Two words used together to refer to something
specific. Is "United Kingdom" one word? 2 words?


Harlan> or ci2dian3, a word for "dictionary",

Isn't <ci2> a word? Isn't <dian3> a word? <ci2dian3> is just a
compound. Comparable to English "word list". Is "word list" one
word, or two?


Harlan> or fu2wu4yuan2, a word meaning "waiter".

Again, just a compound of 3 root words. Compare that with "bus driver
license". Is that one word? 3 words? 2 words? or what?

And English doesn't mark the boundary of "book store", "bus fare",
"washing machine" "train station", etc. with other expressions before
or after them. How is Chinese that different? (BTW, is "washing
machine" one word or two words? What are the criteria?)

--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}

E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 11:55:23 AM8/1/05
to

Have you ever looked at a Chinese-English dictionary?

Single characters rarely even have a definition; the definitions are for
the two-character units listed under the characters.

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:49:06 PM8/1/05
to
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> And English doesn't mark the boundary of "book store", "bus
>> fare", "washing machine" "train station", etc. with other
>> expressions before or after them. How is Chinese that
>> different? (BTW, is "washing machine" one word or two words?
>> What are the criteria?)

Peter> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-English dictionary?

Yes. I used to have one, but I can't find it anymore.

Have you ever looked at a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, too?


Peter> Single characters rarely even have a definition;

Mine does. And most, if not all, Chinese-Chinese dictionary have
definitions for every single character. Indeed, we have 2 types of
dictionaries. There are <zi4dian3> for explaining single characters,
as well as <ci2dian3> for explaining multi-character combinations.


Peter> the definitions are for the two-character units listed
Peter> under the characters.

Maybe, that's because it's easier to find *English equivalents* when
considering 2-character units. That doesn't mean single characters do
not mean anything, nor that the 2-character units aren't compounds.

According to your argument, shall I call English expression "train
station" 1 word, because a French-English dictionary puts it under
"gare (n. f.)"? And because a German-English dictionary puts it under
"Bahnhof (n. m.)"? And English "central station" and French "station
centrale" are both 1 word expressions, because it's "Hauptbahnhof" in
a German-English or German-French dictionary?

Harlan Messinger

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 1:23:46 PM8/1/05
to
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>>>>>>"Harlan" == Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
> >>> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word
> >>> divisions in either script. -- Peter T. Daniels
> >>> gram...@att.net
> >> Am I misunderstanding you? Thai "script" may very well have no
> >> word divisions, but how can you say the same for Chinese? Every
> >> word has its own character
>
> Harlan> That's a misconception. Many words in Chinese consist of
> Harlan> multiple syllables/characters, such as Chong1guo2, the
> Harlan> name for China,
>
> Aren't Chong1 and guo2 themselves root-words?

Yes.

It's comparable to
> "United Kingdom". Two words used together to refer to something
> specific. Is "United Kingdom" one word? 2 words?

Which proves that not every pair of words in English collapses into a
single word. Which isn't saying much.

>
>
> Harlan> or ci2dian3, a word for "dictionary",
>
> Isn't <ci2> a word? Isn't <dian3> a word? <ci2dian3> is just a
> compound. Comparable to English "word list". Is "word list" one
> word, or two?

Your English is good enough that your oversight of terms like
"vineyard", "cupboard", etc., must be intentional.

[snip]

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 2:04:16 PM8/1/05
to
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> And English doesn't mark the boundary of "book store", "bus
> >> fare", "washing machine" "train station", etc. with other
> >> expressions before or after them. How is Chinese that
> >> different? (BTW, is "washing machine" one word or two words?
> >> What are the criteria?)
>
> Peter> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-English dictionary?
>
> Yes. I used to have one, but I can't find it anymore.
>
> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, too?

Where would I even find one? It would do me no good at all.

> Peter> Single characters rarely even have a definition;
>
> Mine does. And most, if not all, Chinese-Chinese dictionary have

Your what? C-E or C-C?

> definitions for every single character. Indeed, we have 2 types of
> dictionaries. There are <zi4dian3> for explaining single characters,
> as well as <ci2dian3> for explaining multi-character combinations.
>
> Peter> the definitions are for the two-character units listed
> Peter> under the characters.
>
> Maybe, that's because it's easier to find *English equivalents* when
> considering 2-character units. That doesn't mean single characters do
> not mean anything, nor that the 2-character units aren't compounds.

I didn't say they don't mean anything at all. I said they don't function
on their own.

> According to your argument, shall I call English expression "train
> station" 1 word, because a French-English dictionary puts it under
> "gare (n. f.)"? And because a German-English dictionary puts it under
> "Bahnhof (n. m.)"? And English "central station" and French "station
> centrale" are both 1 word expressions, because it's "Hauptbahnhof" in
> a German-English or German-French dictionary?

What a peculiar way of arguing you have.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 2:58:33 PM8/1/05
to

I agree very much. spaceless arabic script writing, for decorative or
other reasons is not infrequent.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 4:45:20 PM8/1/05
to
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> I agree very much. spaceless arabic script writing, for decorative or
> other reasons is not infrequent.

Well, let's not get into decorative calligraphy!

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 6:24:35 PM8/1/05
to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > I agree very much. spaceless arabic script writing, for decorative or
> > other reasons is not infrequent.
>
> Well, let's not get into decorative calligraphy!

it's the best example of spaceless arabic script writing I know of.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 11:26:19 PM8/1/05
to

But the point was legibility.

Dennis

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 11:08:58 PM8/1/05
to
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>>> However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
>>>>Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
>>>>word divisions, as was the custom at first.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you can understand this.
>>>>
>>>> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
>>>>
>>>> Msrycnndrstndths
>>>
>>>If you're going to do this silly exercise, don't leave out notation for
>>>initial vowels (and don't use digraphs):
>>>
>>>@mSrycn@ndrstndDs.

I understand the syllable marker. It's still not clear to
me that this is sufficiently unambiguous. It might be if
one got used to it. Is that your point?


>>>> I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
>>>>with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
>>>>about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
>>>>wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.
>>>>
>>>>http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm
>>
>> Obviously something like Ukrainian is worse without vowels,
>>since it has more consonant clusters. That is how this
>>fellow gets the freedom to read what he wants.

>> I'm not sure that's


>>germane to this discussion.
>
> I'm not sure what "this discussion" is -- you lumped together
> vowellessness and spacelessness, which are two different and unrelated
> things.

I agree, they *are* different and unrelated. My question
is, if one omits *both* vowels and word divisions, does one
have too much ambiguity, in ancient Greek, modern English,
or IE languages in general?

> IE languages _have been written_ vowellessly for millennia, so
> that's not an interesting topic;

Agreed.

> and many languages _are still written_
> spacelessly, suggesting that if English didn't have spaces, it wouldn't
> be a terrible burden to learn to read it that way.

Most likely.

> Spacelessness in Greek is less problematic because very few letters can
> be word-final,

That may be the important factor! The issue, of course,
isn't spaces as such, but word breaks.

> and spacelessness in the Arabic family of scripts is less
> problematic because of word-final flourishes.

Yes, that's how you get word breaks there.

Once again, if you leave out both word divisions, in some
form, and vowels, can you get away with it, and in what
languages? The crackpot Ukrainian site linked above rather
suggests it won't work there - although he does *not*
provide a blank syllable start marker where a syllable
starts without a consonant.

OTOH, what you said about Greek suggests it *would* work
there. If one grants that, how then would you explain the
Greeks' introduction of vowels into the Phoenician abjad?

You'll have to cut me a little slack; I'm not a
professional linguist, just an amateur. ;-)

Dennis

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 11:41:16 PM8/1/05
to
Dennis wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>> However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
> >>>>Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
> >>>>word divisions, as was the custom at first.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure you can understand this.
> >>>>
> >>>> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
> >>>>
> >>>> Msrycnndrstndths
> >>>
> >>>If you're going to do this silly exercise, don't leave out notation for
> >>>initial vowels (and don't use digraphs):
> >>>
> >>>@mSrycn@ndrstndDs.
>
> I understand the syllable marker. It's still not clear to
> me that this is sufficiently unambiguous. It might be if
> one got used to it. Is that your point?

It's not a "syllable marker." it notes the presence of an initial vowel.

> >>>> I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
> >>>>with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
> >>>>about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
> >>>>wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm
> >>
> >> Obviously something like Ukrainian is worse without vowels,
> >>since it has more consonant clusters. That is how this
> >>fellow gets the freedom to read what he wants.
>
> >> I'm not sure that's
> >>germane to this discussion.
> >
> > I'm not sure what "this discussion" is -- you lumped together
> > vowellessness and spacelessness, which are two different and unrelated
> > things.
>
> I agree, they *are* different and unrelated. My question
> is, if one omits *both* vowels and word divisions, does one
> have too much ambiguity, in ancient Greek, modern English,
> or IE languages in general?

Clearly not, since lots of scripts omit one or both.

> > IE languages _have been written_ vowellessly for millennia, so
> > that's not an interesting topic;
>
> Agreed.
>
> > and many languages _are still written_
> > spacelessly, suggesting that if English didn't have spaces, it wouldn't
> > be a terrible burden to learn to read it that way.
>
> Most likely.
>
> > Spacelessness in Greek is less problematic because very few letters can
> > be word-final,
>
> That may be the important factor! The issue, of course,
> isn't spaces as such, but word breaks.
>
> > and spacelessness in the Arabic family of scripts is less
> > problematic because of word-final flourishes.
>
> Yes, that's how you get word breaks there.
>
> Once again, if you leave out both word divisions, in some
> form, and vowels, can you get away with it, and in what
> languages? The crackpot Ukrainian site linked above rather
> suggests it won't work there - although he does *not*
> provide a blank syllable start marker where a syllable
> starts without a consonant.
>
> OTOH, what you said about Greek suggests it *would* work
> there. If one grants that, how then would you explain the
> Greeks' introduction of vowels into the Phoenician abjad?

I have published the explanation too many times to want to retype it
here!

Can you get at Blackwell's *Handbook of Linguistics*, ed. Aronoff &
Rees-Miller?

Or the Eerdman's One-Volume Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman?

Or the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archeology in the Near East?

> You'll have to cut me a little slack; I'm not a
> professional linguist, just an amateur. ;-)

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 1:04:50 AM8/2/05
to

Prai Jei wrote:
> Dennis (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
> <dchlg...@enews4.newsguy.com>:
>
> > I'm sure you can understand this.
> >
> > M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
> >
> > Msrycnndrstndths
>
> A more appropriate rendering would be
>
> ¿ ¿m sr y¿ cn ¿ndrstnd ths
>
> where an additional character (chosen to be devoid of any accepted
> pronunciation) indicates a "silent" consonant (cf. Hebrew aleph, Arabic
> alif) i.e. a vowel without a consonant sound before it.

in arabic and hebrew the alif / aleph represents the glottal stop
preceding the vowel (i.e. vowels have initial glottalic onset), i.e. a
consonant. but many other languages using these scripts don't have this
onset, so then the letters alif / aleph become as you say in initial
position.

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 6:09:45 AM8/2/05
to
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, too?

Peter> Where would I even find one? It would do me no good at all.

Obviously: in the country where this script was invented.


Peter> Single characters rarely even have a definition;
>> Mine does. And most, if not all, Chinese-Chinese dictionary
>> have

Peter> Your what? C-E or C-C?

My Chinese->English dictionary.


Peter> the definitions are for the two-character units listed
Peter> under the characters.
>> Maybe, that's because it's easier to find *English
>> equivalents* when considering 2-character units. That doesn't
>> mean single characters do not mean anything, nor that the
>> 2-character units aren't compounds.

Peter> I didn't say they don't mean anything at all. I said they
Peter> don't function on their own.

Neither do most English word function on their own. You need to
formulate a sentence.

And most Chinese character do function on their own -- at least as
"abbreviations". We often do that when writing headlines.

>> According to your argument, shall I call English expression
>> "train station" 1 word, because a French-English dictionary
>> puts it under "gare (n. f.)"? And because a German-English
>> dictionary puts it under "Bahnhof (n. m.)"? And English
>> "central station" and French "station centrale" are both 1 word
>> expressions, because it's "Hauptbahnhof" in a German-English or
>> German-French dictionary?

Peter> What a peculiar way of arguing you have.

You're running out of arguments?

Maybe, you should tell me why it is justifiable for you to judge the
'wordness' of Chinese characters based on your Chinese->English (or
English->Chinese) dictionaries, but at the same time it is
unjustifiable for me to analogously argue about the 'wordness' of
English expressions based on English<->German and English<->French
dictionaries.

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 6:12:37 AM8/2/05
to
>>>>> "Harlan" == Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes:

Harlan> That's a misconception. Many words in Chinese consist of
Harlan> multiple syllables/characters, such as Chong1guo2, the
Harlan> name for China,
>> Aren't Chong1 and guo2 themselves root-words?

Harlan> Yes.

Harlan> It's comparable to


>> "United Kingdom". Two words used together to refer to
>> something specific. Is "United Kingdom" one word? 2 words?

Harlan> Which proves that not every pair of words in English
Harlan> collapses into a single word. Which isn't saying much.

If you consider "United Kingdom" to be "2 words NOT collapsed into a
single word", then why would you consider "Zhong1 guo2" to be "2 words
COLLAPSED into a single word"?

You're so inconsistent, and mislead by the spacing.


Harlan> or ci2dian3, a word for "dictionary",
>> Isn't <ci2> a word? Isn't <dian3> a word? <ci2dian3> is just
>> a compound. Comparable to English "word list". Is "word list"
>> one word, or two?

Harlan> Your English is good enough that your oversight of terms
Harlan> like "vineyard", "cupboard", etc., must be intentional.

You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list" one word?

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 8:44:23 AM8/2/05
to
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, too?
>
> Peter> Where would I even find one? It would do me no good at all.
>
> Obviously: in the country where this script was invented.

So you'll buy me a plane ticket and a hotel reservation so I can go to
Anyang to see a dictionary?

I know what books about Chinese tell me.

Chinese-English dictionaries follow the analysis by linguists who study
Chinese.

Jeez.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 8:45:23 AM8/2/05
to

I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 10:27:22 AM8/2/05
to
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
>> one word?

Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.

And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?

Joachim Pense

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 4:05:58 PM8/2/05
to
Peter T. Daniels:

> Joachim Pense wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>> >
>> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
>> > either script.
>>
>> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
>> particular) for exactly that reason.
>
> Where did you get such reports?

Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence* divisions,
and that is something different.

Joachim

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 8:14:19 PM8/2/05
to

Thai does use clause divisions -- and these days Chinese has even
imported Western punctuation marks.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 8:15:28 PM8/2/05
to
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
> >> one word?
>
> Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
>
> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?

I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word phrases.

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 1:34:28 AM8/3/05
to
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> >> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
>> >> one word?
>>
Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
>> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?

Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
Peter> phrases.

Why aren't they "one word"?

Richard Herring

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 6:29:54 AM8/3/05
to
In message <42F00C...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes

>Joachim Pense wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>> > Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
>> >> > either script.
>> >>
>> >> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
>> >> particular) for exactly that reason.
>> >
>> > Where did you get such reports?
>>
>> Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence* divisions,
>> and that is something different.
>
>Thai does use clause divisions

For some suitably vague definition of "clause". It doesn't seem to
correspond to the notion of "sentence".

> -- and these days Chinese has even
>imported Western punctuation marks.

--
Richard Herring

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 9:32:08 AM8/3/05
to
Richard Herring wrote:
>
> In message <42F00C...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >Joachim Pense wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter T. Daniels:
> >>
> >> > Joachim Pense wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Peter T. Daniels:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
> >> >> > either script.
> >> >>
> >> >> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
> >> >> particular) for exactly that reason.
> >> >
> >> > Where did you get such reports?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence* divisions,
> >> and that is something different.
> >
> >Thai does use clause divisions
>
> For some suitably vague definition of "clause". It doesn't seem to
> correspond to the notion of "sentence".

"Sentence" isn't a technical term in linguistics.

> > -- and these days Chinese has even
> >imported Western punctuation marks.
--

Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 9:33:19 AM8/3/05
to
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> >> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
> >> >> one word?
> >>
> Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
> >> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
>
> Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
> Peter> phrases.
>
> Why aren't they "one word"?

Because there's a space inside them.

I can anticipate your next question:

"Why is there a space inside them?"

Stress patterns, for one thing.

Richard Herring

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 10:10:12 AM8/3/05
to
In message <42F0C7...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Richard Herring wrote:
>>
>> In message <42F00C...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
>> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> >Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >>
>> >> > Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
>> >> >> > either script.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
>> >> >> particular) for exactly that reason.
>> >> >
>> >> > Where did you get such reports?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence*
>> >>divisions,
>> >> and that is something different.
>> >
>> >Thai does use clause divisions
>>
>> For some suitably vague definition of "clause". It doesn't seem to
>> correspond to the notion of "sentence".
>
>"Sentence" isn't a technical term in linguistics.

But it prompted you to write about clause divisions as though they are
something related. So would you care to offer a definition of what the
"clauses" are, for which Thai marks divisions?


>
>> > -- and these days Chinese has even
>> >imported Western punctuation marks.

--
Richard Herring

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 10:59:00 AM8/3/05
to

A clause has a subject and a predicate.

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 11:41:34 AM8/3/05
to
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
>> >> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
>>
Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
Peter> phrases.
>> Why aren't they "one word"?

Peter> Because there's a space inside them.

Peter> I can anticipate your next question:

No. Your guess is wrong.

My next question: A chinese sentence is written without spacing. So,
the whole sentence is one single word?

Dennis

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 4:08:03 PM8/3/05
to
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> >> >> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
>> >> >> one word?
>> >>
>> Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
>> >> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
>>
>> Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
>> Peter> phrases.
>>
>>Why aren't they "one word"?
>
> Because there's a space inside them.
>
> I can anticipate your next question:
>
> "Why is there a space inside them?"
>
> Stress patterns, for one thing.

This is something I've wondered about. Take the single
German word "Bundesrepublik" "Federal Republic". As a term
it would be stressed in English "Féderal Republic" with
only one primary stress. Contrast the statement "It's a
féderal repúblic" with two primary stresses. So, as a term
is it one word but as used in the statement is it two words?
The German is certainly written as one word.

Dennis

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 5:39:59 PM8/3/05
to
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
> >> >> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
> >>
> Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
> Peter> phrases.
> >> Why aren't they "one word"?
>
> Peter> Because there's a space inside them.
>
> Peter> I can anticipate your next question:
>
> No. Your guess is wrong.
>
> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without spacing. So,
> the whole sentence is one single word?

You're beginning to look like gilgames.

Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no significance in
Chinese.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 5:40:54 PM8/3/05
to
Dennis wrote:

> This is something I've wondered about. Take the single
> German word "Bundesrepublik" "Federal Republic". As a term
> it would be stressed in English "Féderal Republic" with
> only one primary stress. Contrast the statement "It's a
> féderal repúblic" with two primary stresses. So, as a term
> is it one word but as used in the statement is it two words?
> The German is certainly written as one word.

Where did you get your data about the English stresses? They're wrong.

Dennis

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 7:09:45 PM8/3/05
to

From myself. Yes, I'm a native speaker, and I goofed.
Nonetheless, you probably understand the point. I've heard
that in English, stress patterns in some word combinations
indicate that they are one (syntactic) word, such that in
something like German they would be written as such. True?

Dennis

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 9:14:31 PM8/3/05
to

Any examples? The standard example in the olden days was "lighthouse
keeper" vs. "light housekeeper."

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 1:46:24 AM8/4/05
to
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without
>> spacing. So, the whole sentence is one single word?

Peter> You're beginning to look like gilgames.

Peter> Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no
Peter> significance in Chinese.

So, you lack a common yardstick to define the notion of "word" for
Chinese in a way consistent with English.


And your previous yardstick of "one entry in a *foreigner language*
dictionary" also turned out to be useless because that would make the
English term "train station" one word as it has its own entry in a
French dictionary ("gare") or German dictionary ("Bahnhof").

Richard Herring

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 5:27:26 AM8/4/05
to
In message <42F0DB...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Richard Herring wrote:
>>
>> In message <42F0C7...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
>> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> >Richard Herring wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In message <42F00C...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
>> >> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> >> >Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > either script.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
>> >> >> >> particular) for exactly that reason.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Where did you get such reports?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence*
>> >> >>divisions,
>> >> >> and that is something different.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thai does use clause divisions
>> >>
>> >> For some suitably vague definition of "clause". It doesn't seem to
>> >> correspond to the notion of "sentence".
>> >
>> >"Sentence" isn't a technical term in linguistics.
>>
>> But it prompted you to write about clause divisions as though they are
>> something related. So would you care to offer a definition of what the
>> "clauses" are, for which Thai marks divisions?
>
>A clause has a subject and a predicate.

"Thai words are not written with spaces between them as is done in
writing English and other European languages. All words within a phrase
or clause (or within a sentence containing a single clause) are written
together without any spacing, as is customary in writing Sanskrit and
other languages using the Devanagari or one of its derivatives. Example:
[...]"

"Spaces, on the other hand, set off the end of a phrase, clause or
sentence and are therefore used in places where we normally use the
comma and the period, e.g. [...]"

"Thai printed matter (as opposed to typewritten matter) is arranged so
that the righthand margin is even, just as is dome in our own printed
books. But in Thai this can mean that the end of a sentence is unmarked
in any way. If the end of the sentence is flush with the righthand
margin, there will be no special mark to set it off as the end of a
sentence. Contrariwise, in order to adjust the righthand margin the
printer will sometimes insert an extra space or two which is not meant
to be interpreted as the end of a phrase or clause."

- Mary R. Haas, "The Thai System of Writing", pp 89-90.

--
Richard Herring

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 9:24:31 AM8/4/05
to
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without
> >> spacing. So, the whole sentence is one single word?
>
> Peter> You're beginning to look like gilgames.
>
> Peter> Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no
> Peter> significance in Chinese.
>
> So, you lack a common yardstick to define the notion of "word" for
> Chinese in a way consistent with English.
>
> And your previous yardstick of "one entry in a *foreigner language*
> dictionary" also turned out to be useless because that would make the
> English term "train station" one word as it has its own entry in a
> French dictionary ("gare") or German dictionary ("Bahnhof").

I can only handle one gilgames at a time.

Fortunately, they tend to appear only one at a time (and I won't name
any names lest they be summoned from the vasty deep).

Des Small

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 9:42:11 AM8/4/05
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > >> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without
> > >> spacing. So, the whole sentence is one single word?
> >
> > Peter> You're beginning to look like gilgames.
> >
> > Peter> Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no
> > Peter> significance in Chinese.
> >
> > So, you lack a common yardstick to define the notion of "word" for
> > Chinese in a way consistent with English.
> >
> > And your previous yardstick of "one entry in a *foreigner language*
> > dictionary" also turned out to be useless because that would make the
> > English term "train station" one word as it has its own entry in a
> > French dictionary ("gare") or German dictionary ("Bahnhof").
>
> I can only handle one gilgames at a time.

(Sigh. Why is it so very often, although by no means always, me?)

LSD! Your point is not a point, since it is false.

PTD's yardstick was that one criterion for Chinese wordiness would be
the headwords in the CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a Chinese-English
dictionary.

For your comparison with English words to make sense, the only honest
thing to do would be to consider the ENGLISH TO SOMETHING side of an
English-Something dictionary.

Of the dictionaries to hand (Collins Gem French-English,
Langenscheidts Universal Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch, Berlitz
Dutch-English, Norsted's Engelska Fickordbok), none - not a single
one! - has an entry for "train station" under "train" in the English
to Foreign side.

But presumably this wasn't what you meant anyway, since your Usenet
debating technique hardly gives the impression that you value honesty
highly.

Des
supposes it's good arguing training, at least

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 9:54:01 AM8/4/05
to
Des Small wrote:

> (Sigh. Why is it so very often, although by no means always, me?)

Fundamental competence?

> Des
> supposes it's good arguing training, at least

--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Harlan Messinger

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 9:52:54 AM8/4/05
to

I'm not evading anything. You asked basically the same question with
several different examples. I answered it once for "United Kingdom", and
I told you why your question was beside the point. I didn't see any
point in answering the same question over and over, so I directed your
attention to what you were willfully overlooking.

Harlan Messinger

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 10:05:44 AM8/4/05
to
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>>>>>>"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
> >> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without
> >> spacing. So, the whole sentence is one single word?
>
> Peter> You're beginning to look like gilgames.
>
> Peter> Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no
> Peter> significance in Chinese.
>
> So, you lack a common yardstick to define the notion of "word" for
> Chinese in a way consistent with English.

He doesn't, really, because after all linguists are able to discuss what
constitutes a word even in languages that don't have a written form.

Out of curiosity, can you tell us your interpretation of the distinction
between 字(zi4) and 詞 (ci2) ?

Greg Lee

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 11:26:22 AM8/4/05
to

But English "train station" is a compound word, so the appropriateness
of the yardstick as LSD applied it is confirmed.

--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 1:38:48 PM8/4/05
to
>>>>> "Des" == Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk> writes:

Des> LSD! Your point is not a point, since it is false.

Des> PTD's yardstick was that one criterion for Chinese wordiness
Des> would be the headwords in the CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a
Des> Chinese-English dictionary.

Des> For your comparison with English words to make sense, the
Des> only honest thing to do would be to consider the ENGLISH TO
Des> SOMETHING side of an English-Something dictionary.

Easy. Take English-French. What's "railway" in French? "Chemin de
fer". So, "chemin de fer" must be _one single word_, right? Even
though "chemin" means "road" and "fer" means "iron"?


Des> Of the dictionaries to hand (Collins Gem French-English,
Des> Langenscheidts Universal Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch, Berlitz
Des> Dutch-English, Norsted's Engelska Fickordbok), none - not a
Des> single one! - has an entry for "train station" under "train"
Des> in the English to Foreign side.

English German? Then "remember (inf.)" maps to "sich erinnern
(inf.)". So, the Germans lexicographers are all wrong to write "sich
erinnern" with a space in between. Since it's one word in English, it
must be also 1 word in German, right?

--
Lee Sau Dan

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 1:41:26 PM8/4/05
to
>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> writes:

Greg> But English "train station" is a compound word, so the
Greg> appropriateness of the yardstick as LSD applied it is
Greg> confirmed.

What's a compound word? Aren't its components words by themselves?

But most Chinese 2-syllable words are also compound words. So, why
reject the claim that each syllable in those bisyllabic words are also
words by themselves?

Lee Sau Dan

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 1:43:37 PM8/4/05
to
>>>>> "Harlan" == Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes:

Harlan> Out of curiosity, can you tell us your interpretation of
Harlan> the distinction between 字(zi4) and 詞 (ci2) ?

There is no clear distinction. Much like there is no clear-cut line
separating black and white in the grayscale spectrum. The boundary is
fuzzy.

Greg Lee

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 2:34:39 PM8/4/05
to
Lee Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> >>>>> "Greg" == Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> writes:

> Greg> But English "train station" is a compound word, so the
> Greg> appropriateness of the yardstick as LSD applied it is
> Greg> confirmed.

> What's a compound word?

A word made up of words, or at least non-affixes.

> Aren't its components words by themselves?

Yes, ordinarily.

> But most Chinese 2-syllable words are also compound words. So, why
> reject the claim that each syllable in those bisyllabic words are also
> words by themselves?

I didn't reject such a claim.

--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>

Des Small

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 3:40:06 PM8/4/05
to
Lee Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:

> >>>>> "Des" == Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk> writes:
>
> Des> LSD! Your point is not a point, since it is false.
>
> Des> PTD's yardstick was that one criterion for Chinese wordiness
> Des> would be the headwords in the CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a
> Des> Chinese-English dictionary.
>
> Des> For your comparison with English words to make sense, the
> Des> only honest thing to do would be to consider the ENGLISH TO
> Des> SOMETHING side of an English-Something dictionary.
>
> Easy. Take English-French. What's "railway" in French? "Chemin de
> fer". So, "chemin de fer" must be _one single word_, right?

Wrong.

The correct conclusion is that "railway" is a single word in English,
which after all it is. Your persistent non-sequiturs are becoming
very tiresome. The proposal was to use the CHINESE headwords in the
CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a bilingual dictionary as evidence of
lexical elements IN CHINESE.

Your "analogous" example above is simply and obviously not analogous,
of course, but you are starting to persuade me it is as much genuine
stupidity as ill-will that is preventing you from acknowleging this.

> Even though "chemin" means "road" and "fer" means "iron"?
>
>
> Des> Of the dictionaries to hand (Collins Gem French-English,
> Des> Langenscheidts Universal Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch, Berlitz
> Des> Dutch-English, Norsted's Engelska Fickordbok), none - not a
> Des> single one! - has an entry for "train station" under "train"
> Des> in the English to Foreign side.
>
> English German? Then "remember (inf.)" maps to "sich erinnern
> (inf.)". So, the Germans lexicographers are all wrong to write "sich
> erinnern" with a space in between. Since it's one word in English, it
> must be also 1 word in German, right?

No, for the same reason as above and for the same reason as in
the previous post. It's one (1) word in English, and the number of
words it is in English is one (1), and the language in which the
number of words it is by looking for English headwords in a bilingual
dictionary is English (in which the number of words it is is one (1)).

I no longer think I can cause you to understand the argument, though,
trivial though it is.

Des
will leave it to you to claim triumph

O-V R:nen

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 3:42:37 PM8/4/05