From: suzmccarth
Message: 4868
Date: 2005-04-24
>In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:"the type has been called neosyllabary [Fevrier], pseudo-alphabet
>suzmccarth wrote
> > > They are utterly different from syllabaries, in that they
>reflect the
> > > prior discovery of the "segment" -- that things smaller than
>syllables,
> > > such as consonants and vowels, can be analyzed from the speech
>stream.
> >
> > That is exactly what Fevrier and Cohen said about Indic scripts.
> > That always was the meaning of neosyllabism or secondary
> > syllabaries.
>
> Who, to paraphrase an earlier question of yours, suggested that it
> wasn't?
>
> > I cannot agree that Fevrier and Cohen's use of the term
>neosyllabary
> > or alphabet-syllabaire would in any way lead to the notion
> > of 'unidirectional' development.
>
> Who suggested that it would?
>Under what possible definition of "alphasyllabary" does HangulI wouldn't want to classify Hangul, it is just an exercise in
>qualify? (See WWS p. 4 n.
> > That was a direct descendent of Taylor.a
>
> As I explain in my IOS 20 article, Taylor did embrace Darwinism as
> model for the history of writing systems, but I don't think you'llfind
> him embracing "unidirectional development." I don't think itoccurred to
> him.Does Darwinism imply 'unidirectional' development or not? A good
> > In effect, if the latter does not appear to be able to besurpassed
> > as a system in the expression of the analysis of language, onesees
> > thatpast."
> > systematic graphic combinations can be substituted for the
> > capricious evolved variety of the inheritied letters of the
> >But combinations of what - vowels and consonants, surely.
> > Page 215 219
> >
> > Marcel Cohen
> > Grande Invention de L'Ecriture et son Evolution. 1958
>
> Assuming your translation is accurate, I don't see that his s.c.g.s
> refers to alphabets or "alphabetism," but rather to the extreme
> systematicity of Syllabics.
> I'd say such rapture over Syllabics is unadvised, because it seemsto me
> the shapes are too similar for quick identificationThe actual choice of shapes is another issue. I would personally