Re: From Peter Constable, 2001

suzmccarth wrote:

> So Vico didn't know about syllabic systems but he knew that it
> should be a tripartite chronological progression.

"Should"?????? I reiterate, what's the big deal about the number 3?

> I was thinking of two as offering a choice. Every writing system
> has to represent meaning. But then you can chose segments, whatever

No, every writing system has to represent language.

> you call those things, or syllables, or both. So if you have only
> seen an alphabet, you might try to work it back to a syllabary.

EVERY script creator who has created a script without knowing how to
read any script has created a syllabary.

> But if you have a syllabary you might jump sideways to a dual
> alphabet and syllabary. If you want something new you choose a

Who "jumped sideways"? The only script fitting this description is
Korean, and Seijong('s committee) knew both Chinese and hPags pa.

> syllabary if you want one, just like many First Nations are doing
> now in Canada. Or not, if you don't. Some nations which didn't use
> syllabics historically have adopted it - others have given it up.
> Some have adapted it differently.
>
> Language communities choose to have more or less of one or the other
> or both at once and a range of optional representation. So salient
> features are important but you can't stick a script in a particular
> class. It has certain characteristics because people choose to use
> it that way. Volition vs fate.
>
> > > How about the essential unity of all writing?
> >
> > What "essential unity"?
>
> Defrancis. All writing systems represent meaning; they all represent

No, all writing systems represent language,

> sound. It is more imnportant to see our similarity as human beings

and they do so by representing the sounds of speech.

> than our differences. Amen. (Not in his major book but maybe in
> Taylor and Olson, Scripts and LIteracy.)
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I really don't give a good g*d damn what Unicode does.
>
> Tut, tut.

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...