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

> suzmccarth wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > wrote:
> > > 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 don't know. You tell me. You said that I would be going back

more

> > than a century if I wanted to have a dual system and not a
> > tripartite system. All I am saying is that this didn't begin in

the

> > 1880's. Maybe it was refined then.
>
> No, suz.

I think that it is time you stopped this particularly rude use of my
name.

>I said you would be going back more than a century if you
> rejected Isaac Taylor's (1883) system, which was the basis of all

study

> of writing systems until mine was presented in 1988 and published

in

> 1990.

I wanted to establish that I was willing to go back before Vico. I
think any chronology of 6 major categories does not allow for
splits. It there are divergent developments then writing systems
can be arranged hierarchically by these splits. But don't call every
split a major class.

1883, 1988, that is a pretty schematic history of writing system
theory. I don't think anyone else wanted more than 3 primary
categories. Why can't 6 be arranged in 2 groups of 3 or 3 groups of
2?

Suzanne

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