--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> 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,
> No, every writing system has to represent language.
> > you call those things, or syllables, or both. So if you have
> > seen an alphabet, you might try to work it back to a syllabary.
> EVERY script creator who has created a script without knowing how
> 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
> > 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
> > or both at once and a range of optional representation. So
> > features are important but you can't stick a script in a
> > class. It has certain characteristics because people choose to
> > it that way. Volition vs fate.
> >
> > > > How about the essential unity of all writing?
> > >
> > > What "essential unity"?

There are 4 writing systems typologies reviewed in this article.


The choice is (chronologically)

1. Jaffre and Sampson - 2 types - phonographic or
2. Unger and Defrancis - Essential unity
3. McCarthy (1995)- 2 types - alphabetic and syllabic
4. Daniels - 6 types, we know those

(I am a lumper not a splitter.)

"Types of Writing Systems: One of the volume's distinctive
contributions is Daniels' typology of writing systems, which fills
in points on the continuum between the broad classifications of
logographic and phonographic. He lists six types: 1. logosyllabary—
the characters of a script denote words or morphemes as well as some
syllables (Chinese); 2. syllabary—the characters denote syllables
(Cree); 3. abjad (consonantal)—the characters denote mainly
consonants (Arabic); 4. alphabet—the characters denote consonants
and vowels (Greek); 5. abugida—the character denotes a consonant
with a specific vowel, and other vowels are denoted by a consistent
change in the consonant symbols (Indic); and 6. featural—the shapes
of the characters correlate with distinctive features of the
segments of the language (Korean).

Other typologies have been proposed to avoid the misleading
term "logographic": Jaffré recognizes two basic principles—
phonographic and semiographic—which come into play to different
degrees in different systems. Thus, "there is not an infinite number
of possibilities but...everything oscillates between syllables and
phonemes on the one hand and morphemes and lexemes on the other."

For Unger & DeFrancis, pure logographic and phonographic systems are
extremes that do not describe the writing systems for natural
languages. Their unitary view finds systems clustering at the middle
of the continuum: "The gross visual differences between alphabetic
scripts and those that incorporate Chinese characters, though
obvious, are ultimately trivial. They do not reveal a fundamental
dichotomy but rather mask an essential unity that embraces all
writing systems." (55)

McCarthy makes yet a different division, distinguishing alphabetic,
which is analytic, from syllabic, which is wholistic.

Whatever the typological scheme, it is widely recognized that most
systems are mixed, representing the language on more than one level."


My system isn't really in circulation so I will probably revise it
to salient features without too many people noticing or caring. I
don't propose a historic classification but a functional one.

You don't have to ask who would publish me. It was David Olson.