Gotta break up this fight: Call Hangul:
- A compoundable alphabet, or
- An “untrue” syllabary.
Ray (Call me a taxi.)
Monty –
I have consulted my references, and I owe you an apology. Hangul is indeed described as an alphabet, with unique characters for each consonant and vowel. I was thrown off by the fact that these characters never (or at least, very rarely) appear individually, but rather in block combinations representing syllables. In this, I believe it is fairly unique among alphabets – but nevertheless, an alphabet it is.
Ms. Kim was a fine teacher; we must not criticize her for the thick-headedness of one of her pupils.
As for the OP – Hangul is very interesting in that it was deliberately created by a single person at a known moment in time, and not directly based on any other known script. This is all documented, and stands in stark contrast to most alphabets, which were developed over great periods of time, by a culture at large, and who’s origins are largely lost in the mists of time. Hangul seems to be truly sui generis.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to slink off and hide my head in shame. What was that quote? “So little knowledge, so much certainty.” Color me red.
Well, I recently derived an alphabet/syllabary from the old Grantha Script (here) </shameless plug>. And I did it all by myself too :).
Oh no need to do that, just make sure you’re sure the next time. Saves lot’s of head aches too :).
It’s worth the risk of burning, to have a second chance…
Beruang:
Thank you.
Hangul requires a minimum of two letters per syllable. So this raises the question of what to do if there’s only one sound (i.e., a vowel sound) in the syllable. The answer is that Hangul uses the O (which is pronounced “ng” at the end of a syllable) to represent no sound & thus “carry the vowel.”
Sequoyah also invented a writing system (pure syllabry) for Cherokee, but, as I’ve said before, it was based on English so far as shapes of some symbols. As Sequoyah was illiterate, his system used some of the English symbols for quite different representations.
Doob:
You missed the part where Hangul was not based on any other script. Therefore your derivation from Grantha is not in the same league.
P.S. If you find yourself in Seoul, definitely take time to see the Sejong Tae-Wang (Great King Sejong) Museum. There’s a quite extensive exhibit there concerning the invention and promulgation of Hangul. If you happen to understand written Chinese, your visit will be even more informative as that was the scientific language of the time.
During my almost two years residence in Seoul, I trekked to that museum many times.
You missed the part where Hangul was not based on any other script. Therefore your derivation from Grantha is not in the same league.
Monty: I was referring to the part that one person made up my script, me. If i was talking about it being unique in that it was not derived from another alphabet, i wouldn’t have said anything. Got it? 
It’s worth the risk of burning, to have a second chance…
Then why did you quote that bit above about “not directly based on any other known script” if you’re not referring to that?
Here’s a concept: if you’re not referring to it, don’t quote it.
Got it?
Now that I’m back on-line, is it too late to point out that Nano was right and that I confused cardinal with ordinal?
I thought so.
Gee Monty, no need to get your underwear in a bunch. Ok, So I quoted a bit too much, no need to get that upset.
Anyway, I do have an alphabet I created by myself and is not derived from any other (similar letter shapes to existing alphabets, but they are not derived from existing alphabets. Mental note: Walk on eggshells around monty.
