--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson
<everson@...> wrote:

> At 09:52 -0400 2004-07-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >So someone took the two terms from me but made up their

own definitions.

> >What am I supposed to do about that?
>
> Copy the two terms in question to this list. Then propose

amendments

> to correct the definitions. Let's see if that produces something
> actionable.

First, I emailed somone in Unicode a year ago with a comment
on 'ideographic 'and didn't get much of a reply.

In 1990 I was hired by the Anglican diocese of Moosonee to
evaluate why the status of Cree writing as a syllabary was being
questioned. (Not by peter Daniels but others. ) Details on this
later. I spent 6 years, talked to linguists in several provinces
and territories, elders, bishops, chiefs, teachers, children,
school bard, editors, etc, I asked professor Gleason. He did not
recommend Daniels - no mention. I learned the phonology of
three Cree dialects. We discussed Japanese, Vai, Cherokee,
Ethiopic, Korean. We discussed Hebrew for weeks. At the end
of 6 years it was decided that there was no reason to say that
Cree did not belong in the primary category of syllabaries.

I do not want to see this reopened with the Cree because of a
term invented by someone who has a shaky and incomplete
memory of Cree phonology from a course he took in the United
States. I studied Language policy and writing systems at the
University of Washingon.

This was an in house investigation and I have no electronic
document to offer right now.

Suzanne McCarthy