Re: Origin of the Sumerian language

--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:26:18 +0000, Gerry <waluk@...> wrote:
> >> The Sumerians were, as far as we know, the first people to

device a

> >writing
> >> system for their language. It was emphatically *not* an

alphabet.

> >> Sumerian writing is logographic, as is well known.
> >
> >Yes, the earliest writing in Mesopotamia was a picture writing
> >invented by the Sumerians who wrote on clay tablets using long

reeds.

> >The script the Sumerians invented and handed down to the Semitic
> >peoples who conquered Mesopotamia in later centuries, is called
> >cuneiform, which is derived from two Latin words: cuneus , which
> >means "wedge," and forma , which means "shape." This picture
> >language, similar to but more abstract than Egyptian

hieroglyphics,

> >eventually developed into a syllabic alphabet
>
> There you go again. There's no such thing as a "syllabic

alphabet".

>
> There are logographic/logosyllabic, syllabic and alphabetic

writing systems

> (the latter can be subdivided, using Peter Daniels' terminology,

into

> abjads [consonantal alphabets such as Phoenician], abugidas [where

the

> characters denote consonants with a designated inherent vowel, and

other

> vowels are denoted by diacritics on the basic consonant symbols:

e.g.

> Ethiopic, Indic] and alphabets proper [with both vowels and

consonants:

> e.g. Greek]). The only thing that might be called a "syllabic

alphabet"

> (or an "alphabetic syllabary") is a mixed system such as Iberian

writing,

> which consists of alphabetic symbols for vowels and

sonorants/fricatives,

> and syllabic signs for stop+vowel combinations (TA, TE, TI, TO, TU

etc.).

The term syllabic alphabet is used at www.omniglot.com for abugidas,
so Gerry's not alone in using this term. Incidentally, do abugidas
have to have inherent vowels? Fully pointed Arabic doesn't have
inherent vowels.

However, cuneiform is a logosyllabic mess, not an abugida, so I'm
afraid Gerry is still wrong.

Does ancient Egyptian fit into this classificatory scheme? It seems
to be a mix of logographic and abjad.

Richard.