Re: From Peter Constable, 2001

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

> suzmccarth wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > wrote:
> > > suzmccarth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >From Peter Constable in November, 2001
> > > >
> > > > "1. phonic/phonemic: structural units represent a

phonological

> > > > segment at some level in the derivation
> > > > 1a. abjad: consonants only (e.g. prototypical example:

ancient

> > > > Semitic scripts)
> > > > 1b. alphabets: consonants, and vowels (e.g. Latin)
> > > >
> > > > 2. syllabic: structural units represent a phonological

syllable

> > >
> > > How does this not cover (3) and (4) as well?
> >
> > Well, I agree with you here. I think there should be only two

major

> > types. Class one, the alphabets and abjads, segmentable in a

line

> > (in phonetic order) below the syllable; and, class two, all the
> > others, which have a predominant syllabic structure.
>
> So you want to go back to the middle of the 19th century, before

even E.

> B. Tylor! (As far as I can tell, the earliest appearance of the
> tripartite typology, word sign - syllable sign - sound sign, is

Isaac

> Taylor in 1883, but he doesn't present it as his own idea, nor

does he

> credit anyone else.)

"G.Vico (1668 -1744) examined the different languages known during
his time (Greek, Egyptian , Turkish, German, Hungarian ... ) and
their writing systems in order ot divide them into the three
categories just mentionned." Kristeva. 1989. (divine, poetic and
epistolatory) I am not sure about how this lines up exactly but it
is tripartite. I imagine that the evolutionary model, the ladder
idea, became popular again in the 1880's since this was the reigning
metaphor of that age. I don't see any reason not to go back to
another time.

How about the essential unity of all writing?

BTW thanks for the definition of abugida. More or less what I
thought but Tamil and Ethiopic aren't similar in Unicode. Maybe
Unicode ought not to use the term.

Suzanne

> > Whether alphabets have to be linear or not - I don't know, but

if a

> > system isn't linear then it seems to come in for different
>
> How is Modern Aramaic "different" from the other alphabets? It

uses the

> Nestorian variety of the Syriac script, but the vowel points are
> obligatory.
>
> > treatment. So linearity should be a salient feature for systems

but

> > I won't propose any definitions. What does Bill Bright have to

say

> > about this? Maybe salient features is the way to go and forget
> > classes. obviously a system can have salient features from more

than

> > one group, i.e. Korean.
> >
> > I am pretty confused by having Cree, Tamil, Ethiopic and Korean
> > potentially in a class together but not Cherokee. Yes, the others
>
> I would find that quite bizarre, too. Korean definitely doesn't go

with

> Tamil and Ethiopic, and I don't think Cree does, either. Cherokee

of

> course goes with none of the above.
>
> > can be analysed below the syllable but in so many different ways.
> > Some can be decomposed and others not. Is an abugida about
> > characters that have systematic syllable permutations,
> > decomposability, or is about the inherent vowel? I think you

should

>
> I don't know what you mean by "systematic syllable permutations" or
> "decomposability."
>
> > relent and give me a 'sufficiently precise' definition. I don't
> > stop talking to people just because they haven't read Defrancis

on

> > Chinese.
>
> Well, they should have!
>
> An abugida is a writing system in which the letters stand for a
> consonant followed by the unmarked vowel (usually /a/), and the

other

> vowels are indicated by additions (appendages, modifications,

whatever;

> not "diacritics") to the letters.
>
> > > > 2a. syllabary: no systematic relationship between shapes

(e.g.

> > > > Hiragana)
> > > > 2b. abugida: regular relationship between shapes that

corresponds to

> > > > a regular relationship between phonemes (e.g. Ethiopic, Cdn
> > > > Syllabics)
> > >
> > > Insufficiently precise; it misses the point almost entirely.
> > >
> > > > 3. alphasyllabary: two levels of structural unit representing
> > > > phonemes and syllables (prototypical example: Hangul)
> > >
> > > That certainly doesn't agree with Bill Bright's usage, who

coined the

> > > term (as far as anyone can tell).
> >
> > Well, I think the term alphasyllabary has been around for a long
> > time but maybe Bill Bright did coin it. I can see your point here
> > also.
>
> He says he didn't, but no one seems to have found it anywhere else
> earlier.
>
> > > > 4. logosyllabary: structural units represent syllables

and/or

> > > > morphemes (e.g. Chinese ideographs)"
> > >
> > > Why "and/or"?
> >
> > I would chuck the and/or also, but syllables and morphemes, that
> > seems right. Hence morphosyllabic - not much more to say on

Chinese

> > than DeFrancis or is there?
> > >
> > > > Now that I am forbidden from using 'that word', which I have

grown

> > > > to like, by the way, I will have to restrict myself to

quoting

> > > > others.
> > >
> > > Even if others misuse the word?
> >
> > Well, I am checking out my Hebrew Psalter. However, in the
> > Septuagint, the one I read online, the letters were given in

Greek.

> > But in the Hebrew version I can see it is an acrostic. I don't

want

> > to misuse the word.
>
> In the Hebrew, each group of 8 verses begins with the same letter.
>
> In the Greek, each group of 8 verses is headed with a

transliteration of

> the name of the Hebrew letter with which those verses begin in the
> Hebrew.
>
> I know of one English version that imitates this feature -- Ronald
> Knox's, which is a translation of the Vulgate -- and I once saw

another

> in a church, but it doesn't seem to be any of the usually

mentioned ones

> from the 19th or early 20th century.
>
> However, I don't have the slightest clue why a mention of the

misuse of

> "abugida" would trigger ("Well,") this topic!
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...