suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- 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.

But I'm not interested in the users of (computer) systems or in encoders
-- I'm interested in the nature and history of writing systems.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...