Ph. D. wrote:

> Barry skribis:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > ? Since the vast majority of humans have never been literate, it would
> > > be quite difficult for a writing system to have any but the slightest
> > > effect on its language.
> >
> > Uh, that doesn't make sense on me. I don't see where the conclusion
> > follows form the condition.
> >
> > For example, that Japanese is spoken in a manner that each syllable is
> > distinct and of the same length, it seems likely that a writing system
> > would evolve that reflects that. Other systems are possible of course,
> > and Japanese sure has tried to paste several of them on top of the
> > syllabic systems, but still - why wouldn't a language's writing system -
> > either designed or evolved, take into account what the speakers notice
> > as distinct and important about how they perceive their language, such
> > as a limited number of syllables?
> >
> > Other languages may need to account for tonal differences....
> >
> > So why *wouldn't* a writing system that postdates the spoken one reflect
> > the spoken language?
>
>
> I think there's a misunderstanding here. Mr Daniels did not say that a
> writing system does not reflect the spoken language. He said that the
> spoken language does not change to reflect the writing system. For
> example, suppose the speakers of Trotzil adopted a writing system
> where the symbol 'C' was used for both /k/ and /g/. Since almost all
> speakers of Trotzil remain illiterate, we would not find that all
> occurances
> of /k/ had changed to /g/ in the spoken language, even though they
> are represented by the same symbol in the writing.

But extending your example, we might assume that the literate Trotzil
speakers may be in a position to influence the spoken language, and are
more likely to survive in the long run.

So, perhaps among literate speakers (who rarely deign speak to the
others) may, over time, lose the distinction between /k/ and /g/, and,
as other circumstances changed in the society, there were less and less
illiterate speakers keeping the old distinction (or maybe the illiterate
ones learned that to "pass", they should adopt the changes).

And in the long run, the sounds of the spoken language would be changed.

All hypothetical.of course, and I can think of lots of other ways it
could happen. I am sure others can too.

So, what I was asking, was, has it happened? Why or why not?

Instead, I inadvertently jumped into Peter Daniel's world of black and
white, but surely there is some gray here as some other correspondent's
have already begun to hint at, isn't there?

Do writing system classifications truly exist apart from the spoken
languages the represent, and their classification systems?

Example: Suppose the English alphabet was introduced to Japan instead of
Chinese pre-Heian era. Would the letters have evolved into kana (albeit
of a different shape) that represent the same syllables in the same
arrangement? Or would the language have evolved to have a richer set of
sounds that are present in English? Or some of both?

Best,

Barry