--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> suzmccarth wrote:
> >
> > Instead of the evolutionary model of logographies, syllabaries,

and

> > alphabets, etc. I suggest that there are only two basic types of
> > systems.
>
> The above is not "evolutionary."
>
> > These are alphabets or analytic systems, and syllabaries or
> > wholistic systems. Each of these may encode to a lesser or

greater

> > degree the morphology of the language. Syllabaries may be non-
> > analytic like Japanese and Cherokee, or have an analytic

composition

> > like Cree, Korean and Tamil.
>
> You have just taken a giant step backward.

A giant step sideways....towards something that will help the users
of the system as well as the encoders.

Suzanne McCarthy

It was the recognition of the

> distinction between syllabaries (Japanese and Cherokee) and abugidas
> (Ethiopic and Indic; not Cree or Korean) that made possible my

insights

> into the origins of writing and what I have just now begun calling

the

> functional (formerly internal) history of writing (as opposed to the
> formal/descriptive/external history found in Diringer, Jensen,

etc.).

> > While the analytic nature of the syllabaries may be useful for
> > technical encoding, these systems are still learned by some native
> > speakers as syllabaries. Some members of these language

communities

> > will have reduced access to digital literacy if the syllabic

nature

> > of their system is not reflected at some level in the input

method.

>
> Linguistics does not proceed according to what people believe about
> their languages, but according to what is observed about languages.


> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...