suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth"
> <suzmccarth@...> wrote:>
> >
> > I don't see what the problem is.
>
> James Fevrier used 'le neosyllabisme' for the Indic scripts and
> Marcel Cohen for the recent syllabaries of Guess, Evans and
> Pollard.

In that case, Cohen is misusing (cheapening) the word. "Guess"
presumably is Sequoyah, whose script is a pure syllabary exhibiting none
of the properties of a "neosyllabary" at all.

> So I don't know whether it is possible to use the word in Cohen's
> sense if it is, in fact, Fevrier's word.

Apparently he thought it meant nothing more than "new syllabary."

> However, I am not sure whose word it is and it normally wouldn't
> matter but we are trying to be exact in our etymologies so here
> goes.

Etymologies tell us nothing about the meaning of the word.

> Fevrier published in 1959 but it was a second edition - I have not
> seen the first edition, 1948, nor have I seen it quoted. He readily
> admits that the second edition includes additional material that
> was not in the first.

I have only the first edition. I once compared pages in the two editions
at random and found no differences. Maybe the 2nd corrects typos in the
1st.

(Similarly, the text of Diringer's "3rd ed.," 1968, with the pictures
moved to a second volume, appears to be identical to the text of the 1st
ed., 1948; even the population statistics were not updated. I've never
seen the "2nd ed.," 1953, but it's the one Rich Salomon cites and also
appears not to differ from the 1st.)

> Cohen says in his Ecriture (abrege), 1953, that his book "Grande
> Invention de l'Ecriture", 1958, in which he uses the word
> neosyllabisme, was actually written in 1947 and was then at the
> printer (in 1953). He started the book before the war but he
> stopped to fight in the resistance.

Ditto Gelb's *Study of Writing*. Cohen's "Hamito-Semitic" dictionary
(1947) has the same history.

> So Fevrier's meaning is probably the one most recognized but I
> find Cohen's writing more compelling. I would like to use the
> word 'neosyllabisme' in Cohen's sense. I do not dispute that
> Fevrier _might_ have used the word first but I don't know that.

Yes, he did. But Cohen's interpretation of it is pointless.

> >If you mean recently developed
> > syllabaries,
>
> I do mean the recent syllabaries.

But not distinguishing between "unsophisticated" grammatogeny (Cherokee,
Vai, etc.) and "sophisticated" (Evans, Pollard, etc.) is what leaves the
study of the history of writing in chaos. You'll see from my 1992 [1988]
article that that's the fundamental observation that caused me to
recognize the conditions for the invention of writing.

> >The biggest problem would be with the >taxonomy,
> > especially as it may not be capturing any evolutionary
> development.
>
> This is the best part. Fevrier thought that the recent syllabaries
> were "archaique and depasse" (sorry I am not on my own
> computer and don't know where to find the accents here.) He
> disapproved of them.

He was not thinking of "recent syllabaries."

> Cohen says that 'le neosyllabisme' "pourait avoir de l'avenir". He
> was quite fascinated by them.

He was thinking of syllabaries in general.

> For Fevrier, I would argue, there was a unidirectional evolution.
> For Cohen, I am not so sure. He talks about 'le syllabisme', then
> 'le syllabisme secondaire' of the Indic scripts and finally about 'le
> neosyllabisme' of the recent syllabaries.

Then he has misunderstood not only Février's point, but also the history
of writing -- which seems unlikely, so perhaps it's the interpretation.
I don't have Cohen, but it may be in a library somewhere around here, so
page references would be helpful.

> This makes me think that Cohen was not so firmly of the
> evolutionary school. It makes me think of Vico's cursi e recursi -
> the ascending spiral but also a return. I think of 'le syllabisme'
> as Vico's poetic second stage. Vico, 1668 - 1744, was the one
> who had the idea of the ascending and descending complexity of
> language development.

???

What is "the evolutionary school," and how is or is not one part of it?

> The point is that for Cohen there was a 'syllabisme' . Do we

There was? What was it?

> have a comparable expression in English? The syllabic mode?
> This is quite important here in Canada where computers were a
> serious threat to Cree Syllabics until the late 80's. That was
> really when things turned around for 'aboriginal' scripts. (I say
> 'aboriginal' advisedly because there is a strong sense of
> ownership among the First Nations concerning this script. )

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...