--- 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@...