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

> suzmccarth wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > wrote:
> > > suzmccarth wrote:
>
> > > > I thought that Ethopic was the original abugida that the

name came

> > > > from, just like the name 'alphabet' came from Greek, or

wherever. So

> > > > Ethiopic would be the original abugida. And other systems

that are

> > > > supposed to be like the abugida are called an abugida, a

system that

> > > > is of the type abugida.
> > >
> > > No, suz. Have you really never read anything about the history

of

> > > writing? The Indic scripts were introduced in the time of

Ashoka 3rd c.

> > > BCE; the vocalization of the Ethiopic script was introduce in

the 4th c.

> > > CE, probably under Indian influence.
> >
> > Yes, I have read this. It is intuitive knowledge for anyone who
> > knows about the religious origins of writing systems. But why

call

> > Indic scripts a type of an Ethiopic script, when one precedes the
>
> How's that? Who's done that?

I was tring to avoid saying abugida again.

>
> > other by several centuries. Or are we not supposed to know about
> > the Ethiopic script and its origins. If I have to read the book

to

> > over ride every logical and intuitive idea that the term abugida
> > brings to mind it is unhelpful.
>
> It is a LABEL. Should we not call the Korean alphabet an alphabet
> because it doesn't derive from the Greek?

At least it follows in chronology. I think a use like that has to
develop over time. If there is a consensus among Koreans and others
that has developed in an open forum to use the term alphabet then so
be it. But one person can't put a LABEL on the whole Indian
subcontinent.

Suzanne

> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...