suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth" <suzmccarth@...> wrote:
> >>
> > There are 4 writing systems typologies reviewed in this article.
> >
> > http://www.ubs-translations.org/tictalk/tt48.html
> >
> > The choice is (chronologically)
> >
> > 1. Jaffre and Sampson - 2 types - phonographic
> or
> > logographic/semiographic
>
> (errata Jaffre was 1997, Suzanne)>
>
> 2. Unger and Defrancis (1989)- Essential unity
> > 3. McCarthy (1995)- 2 types - alphabetic and syllabic
> > 4. Daniels (1996)- 6 types, we know those
> >
> > (I am a lumper not a splitter.)
> >
> > "Types of Writing Systems: One of the volume's distinctive
> > contributions is Daniels' typology of writing systems, which fills
> > in points on the continuum between the broad classifications of
> > logographic and phonographic.
>
> If someone teaches that your 6 types are a continuum between
> logographic and phonographic, they are in deep, deep trouble. To
> avoid this, I personally break types into two major classes first
> and then describe two continua. The phonographic to morphographic
> continuum and the phoneme (or feature) to syllable continuum.
> Together that provides a synchronic typology. Then I think of the
> scripts in chronological order from logographs to syllabograms to
> alphabets and back to syllabograms.
>
> Do you really think of your scripts as a continuum with 6 major
> categories or have you been misundertood?

The word "continuum" is from whoever you're quoting, not from me.
Whoever even says they're "points."

The order is historical. Logosyllabaries come first. Sometimes they
develop into syllabaries. Misunderstanding of one resulted in a
logoconsonantary.

The abjad seems to have been a misunderstanding of the logoconsonantary.

The alphabet was a misunderstanding of the abjad.

The abugida was an adaptation of the abjad.

Nonliterates who set about to invent writing for their own language
invariably come up with syllabaries.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...