McCarthy

--- 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 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"?
> >
> > There are 4 writing systems typologies reviewed in this article.
> >
> > http://www.ubs-translations.org/tictalk/tt48.html
> >
> > The choice is (chronologically)
> >
> > 1. Jaffre and Sampson - 2 types - phonographic or
> > logographic/semiographic
> > 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).
>
> Where are they _getting_ this? I certainly never said "as well as

some

> syllables"; I would never call Cree a syllabary; and I don't use

Arabic

So what is Cree?

What is Arabic?

> as an example of an abjad because all long vowels are obligatorily
> written in the string of letters (except the few examples etc.).
>
> > Other typologies have been proposed to avoid the misleading
> > term "logographic": Jaffré recognizes two basic principles—
>
> "ideographic" is a heckofa lot more "misleading"

than "logographic."

>
> > 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."
> > (15)
>
> Is it Sampson who uses "pleremic" and "cenemic" -- as if we had

any hope

> of remembering which was which?
>
> > 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)
>
> Not a unity of all writing systems, but the fact that all writing

is

> fundamentally phonological.
>
> > McCarthy makes yet a different division, distinguishing

alphabetic,

> > which is analytic, from syllabic, which is wholistic.
>
> Which McCarthy is this? Hopefully not the John McCarthy

who unleashed

> "autosegmental" phonology on an unsuspecting world on the basis of
> limited familiarity with Hebrew grammar, but one fears the worst.

No this is not John McCarthy.

Do I have to spell it out? This McCarthy is me. In 1990 I looked up
writing systems in the Encyclopedia Brittanica in my basement and
found David Olson's name so I sent him a paper I was writing for
interest - no academic context. Insup Taylor and David Olson decided
to put it near the front of their book on Scripts and Literacy
beside John DeFrancis. Then I forgot all about it until yesterday
when I googled my name and found out that Daniels and McCarthy both
get mentionned on a webpage together. You are definitve, I grant
you that. But I offer an option for lumpers, instead of splitters.

Suzanne

>
> > Whatever the typological scheme, it is widely recognized that

most

> > systems are mixed, representing the language on more than one

level."

> >
> > http://www.ubs-translations.org/tictalk/tt48.html
> >
> > 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.
>
> That's certainly a mark against you! That it was _his_ article that
> replaced Gelb's in the Britannica is one of the great shames of

that

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