Re: Just wondering

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>
> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | PREDECESSOR SUCCESSOR PRED. TYPE SUCC. TYPE
> | ========================================================================
> | Classical syriac Modern syriac Abjad Alphabet
>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | Not really; the pointings merely changed from optional to
> | obligatory.
>
> They did, and to me that means that it became an alphabet. If a script
> consistently denotes the vowels, how can be it said to be an abjad? I
> realize that the vowels are written with diacritical marks, but even
> so.

I thought you were trying to collect cases of type A changing to type B
at some decisive point in time? That didn't happen here.

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | Linear A Cypriote syllabary Logosyllabary Syllabary
>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | Do you mean Linear B? or what? Why do you say Cypriote "succeeded"
> | LinB?
>
> I think I did mean Linear A, actually, since AncientScripts.com claims
> that. I now see that Bennett's article in WWS seems to say that it was
> derived from Linear B via "Cypro-Minoan scripts", though what he means
> by that I am not sure of.
>
> What's your opinion?

Since we can't read Lin A, how can you say anything at all about what
may have happened to it?

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | Pahlavi Avestan Abjad Alphabet
>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | No -- Avestan didn't develop out of Pahlavi; some Av. letters come
> | from Phl., some come from other sources. Skjaervo sent me his
> | suggestions after I discovered Hofmann's(?) (in EncIran
> | s.v. Avestan) suggestions; they should have been in the WWS article.
>
> I see. Would it be fair to say that the main influences are Pahlavi
> and the Psalter script?

Among others.

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | Chinese script Man'yoogana Logosyllabary Syllabary
>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | Why not the kana generally?
>
> I decided to model this as Hanzi -> Man'yoogana -> Kana.

Is that a reasonable description of what happened?

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | Proto-Elamite Old Elamite Logosyllabary Syllabary
>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | OEl is in cuneiform syllabary; since we can't read "PEl" we have no
> | idea what language it represents, and there's no reason to suppose
> | that Sumerian cuneiform, adapted for Elamite, developed from PEl!
>
> You lost me here, I'm afraid. I didn't mention Sumerian cuneiform, I
> said that PEl developed into OEl. Do you disagree with that, or are
> you saying something else?

The stages of Elamite that can be read are written with plain ol'
Mesopotamian cuneiform, not with any script that has anything to do with
the so-called "Proto-Elamite" tablets.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...