John Hudson wrote:
>
> At 03:52 PM 1/21/2003, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >Not Arabic, but Aramaic, specifically Manichaean.
>
> Manichaean or Nestorian? I thought it was the latter. Gotta keep our
> heresies straight.
As Taylor already recognized in 1883, Uyghur is sufficiently dissimilar
from ("Nestorian") Syriac that it cannot have underlain it -- that's why
he suggested the script came from the Manichaeans, and "28 months to the
day after Taylor died," F. W. K. Müller announced the discovery of Man.
documents, and Liszbarski recognized their script as distinct in 1916
(IOS 20: 90).
(I don't think the intermediate Sogdian was known yet.)
--
Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@...