--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Marco Cimarosti <marco.cimarosti@...>
wrote:

> suzmccarth wrote:
> > > That's true. Yet, some hypothesis sound intrinsically more

naive

> > > that others...
> >
> > Like this one, you mean! :)
> >
> > "I always thought that the key idea of Cree script was to

indicate

> > vowels by rotating the singns in each one the *FOUR* cardinal
> > points north, east, south and west."
>
> Uh? Actually I did not mean this as an hypotheis, but just as the

statement

> of as a self-evident matter of fact...
>
> Aren't Cree syllables with the same consonant represented by the

same shape

> rotated?

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Marco Cimarosti <marco.cimarosti@...>
wrote:

> suzmccarth wrote:
> > > That's true. Yet, some hypothesis sound intrinsically more

naive

> > > that others...
> >
> > Like this one, you mean! :)
> >
> > "I always thought that the key idea of Cree script was to

indicate

> > vowels by rotating the singns in each one the *FOUR* cardinal
> > points north, east, south and west."
>
> Uh? Actually I did not mean this as an hypotheis, but just as the

statement

> of as a self-evident matter of fact...
>
> Aren't Cree syllables with the same consonant represented by the

same shape

> rotated?

Some of the transformations are rotations but most are flips on the
vertical and horizontal axis, similar to b,d,p.q They are sometimes
described as the north, south, east, west syllables and the north-
east, south-east, north-west, south-west characters. However I think
this is recent and often used by those who wish to assign an
aboriginal authorship to syllabics. I don't think that it was a key
idea for Evans when he chose his characters.

In fact, I doubt that Evans even collaborated with the Ojibway.
They had leaders already literate in English. They did not accept
Evans syllabary, had no need of it, I assume, and Evans moved on.
The Cree had less contact with European literacy and when a few of
them learned syllabics they used it to write letters. This spread
quickly and most Cree learned syllabics without ever having heard of
Evans.

I wouldn't argue that there are 4 basic transformations, but it is a
chicken and egg problem. Did Evans decide there were 4 pairs of
vowels first and realize 4 visual transformations were a good match
or did he have the idea of 4 transformations and then decide on the
vowel pairs. Not that it matters. However, this is the only time in
history, is it not, that such a writing system came together. Maybe
all the pieces were intuitive but I don't see any reason not to look
at the cultural influences of the time and become familiar with what
Evans had seen elsewhere.

>
> > [...]
> > > To me, that seems like a very intuitive idea, that could have
> > occurred to
> > > many people. But perhaps that's just becaused I'm used to it.
> >
> > Maybe naively, I am thinking about a matrix, or an array, a

table,

> > whatever you call it, as an invention, something like the

concept of

> > zero.
>
> Oh, then we agree to disagree: I always thought that

the "invention" of zero

> is a big misunderstanding.
>
> How can you "invent" a number? If you have three apples and eat

all of them,

> you have *no* more apples! That "no" is the "concept of zero".
>
> You may say that someone invented a *symbol* to represent number

zero in

> calculations, and you can certainly say that *digit* zero was a

fundamental

> invention. But not zero itsefl.

I was careless, the *symbol* for zero was invented. However, was it
not a significant event to move from not representing zero to
representing it, first by a blank, then a word or other symbol and
finally a digit that could be manipulated visually along with the
other digits.

Isn't the history of the *symbol* for zero of any interest, or the
history of using a matrix to organize data? Isn't this a part of the
study of writing systems? Maybe too mathematical, but there must be
some connection between literacy and numeracy.

Suzanne