Peter T. Daniels scripsit:

> I have said more than once that Cree isn't really a candidate for this
> typology at all, because it's a "sophisticated grammatogeny" -- the
> result of familiarity with phonological theory (such as it was in those
> days, scil. phonetics) and a range of script possibilities.

In that case, Hangul should be excluded as well and on exactly the
same grounds.

So what do we learn from all this typologizing?

There have been several independent morphemic-syllabic systems (some
may be a result of stimulus diffusion, but surely not all), from one of
which developed the abjad. The abjad has had three branches leading
to alphabets (the Greek one, the Yiddish one, and the Manchu one, to
speak loosely but conveniently -- unless indeed Manchu also counts as
sophisticated grammatogeny), and either one or two branches leading to
abugidas (the Ethiopic one and the Indic one). Unrelated systems, created
either independently or by stimulus diffusion, are invariably syllabaries.

In short, there was only one truly radical break with the past in writing
systems, and that was the creation of the abjad bottleneck, wherein all
the symbols representing different syllables or morpheme-syllables with
the same initial consonant were scrapped except for one. From this
rock-bottom minimum, the bulk of the world's writing systems were
reconstituted by a process of refinement and expansion.

John Cowan cowan@...
[T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin.
Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his
theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose
in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may
have important survival value. --Ian Johnston