> suzmccarth wrote:
> > Instead of the evolutionary model of logographies, syllabaries,
> > alphabets, etc. I suggest that there are only two basic types of
> > systems.
> The above is not "evolutionary."
> > These are alphabets or analytic systems, and syllabaries or
> > wholistic systems. Each of these may encode to a lesser or
> > degree the morphology of the language. Syllabaries may be non-
> > analytic like Japanese and Cherokee, or have an analytic
> > like Cree, Korean and Tamil.
> You have just taken a giant step backward.
A giant step sideways....towards something that will help the users
of the system as well as the encoders.
It was the recognition of the
> distinction between syllabaries (Japanese and Cherokee) and abugidas
> (Ethiopic and Indic; not Cree or Korean) that made possible my
> into the origins of writing and what I have just now begun calling
> functional (formerly internal) history of writing (as opposed to the
> formal/descriptive/external history found in Diringer, Jensen,
> > While the analytic nature of the syllabaries may be useful for
> > technical encoding, these systems are still learned by some native
> > speakers as syllabaries. Some members of these language
> > will have reduced access to digital literacy if the syllabic
> > of their system is not reflected at some level in the input
> Linguistics does not proceed according to what people believe about
> their languages, but according to what is observed about languages.