Re: Neosyllabaries

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>

>wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth" <suzmccarth@...>
>wrote:
> > > '...Finally, because a syllable is easier to isolate as a
> > > unit than a phoneme, in the development of writing systems a
>syllabary
> > > begat an alphabet, not the other way around (chap. 1).'
> >
> > And did she actually provide an example?
>
> It's an uncomprehending repetition of Gelbism.

You are right - that statement is ridiculous - I don't know what she
was thinking.

However, I wanted to present the idea of teaching and understanding
Hangul as a syllabary. Just the outline of how Hangul was taught and
its history.

>
> Gelb invented the "Principle of Unidirectional Development" out of
>whole
> cloth -- and had to rename the Phoenician "alphabet"
>as "syllabary" in
> order to fit the invention of the alphabet into the scheme.

I know ... I disagree with Gelb and his "unidirectional" theory as
much as you do.

>
> In truth, no other kind of writing system has ever developed out

of a

> syllabary.

>
> (Which is why it's so important to recognize that abugidas are not
> syllabaries -- not that anything has developed out of them either
>except

But in Fevrier and Cohen the alphabet-syllabaire or neosyllabary
develops out of the consoantal alphabet. It is a secondary syllabry.

However, if one doesn't recognize these systems as some kind of
syllabary then some understanding is lost. They are post-alphabetic
syllabaries.

Fevrier and Cohen make it clear that neosyllabaries are built out of
alphabetic analysis and come after the development of this
knowledge.

Suzanne McCarthy

> in very rare circumstances, viz., apparently, Lao and a couple of
> abortive experiments

What are those - the Bhattirollu?