Re: From Peter Constable, 2001

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 think that it is time you started _thinking_ before typing. I need a
way to express exasperation.

> >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

"chronology"???

> 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?

Perhaps because they don't fall into smaller groups?????? That's WHY
there are six of them.

See my chapter in *Israel Oriental Studies* 20 (2002) for a history of
writing systems typology.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...