Richard Wordingham wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > suzmccarth wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > > >wrote:
> > > > suzmccarth wrote:
> > >
> > > > > but I still want the similarities which syllabaries share to be made
> > > > > transparent.
> > > >
> > > > It has recently been clarified and necessarily restricted.
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate on this? Many writers are content to qualify a
> > > syllabary and say something like a 'pure' syllabary or a 'core'
> > > syllabary. What is this clarification you refer to?
> > >
> > > How is it essential to an understanding of writing systems, etc. and
> > > Why is the definition necessarily restricted rather than qualified?
>
> I believe PTD's reasoning goes as follows:
>
> 1. Classificatory terms should reflect stages in evolutionary
> development.

No. The historical sequence became evident _after_ I identified the huge
difference between syllabaries and abugidas.

> 2. One development process is abjad > abugida > neosyllabary (though
> he may not accept that the last stage has actually happened).

What do _you_ mean by "neosyllabary"?

> 3. Another development process is abjad > alphabet.
>
> 4. Syllabaries do not lead to abjads.
>
> 5. Syllabaries develop from logographic systems. (The terms may need
> some correction here, but I think most will get my meaning).
>
> Because of principle (1), he does not like to classify 'contrived'
> systems (I forget his term) in which elements of different systems
> are combined. The prototypical examples of contrived systems are
> Korean and, in the majority opinion, Cree.

sophisticated grammatogeny

> I don't known how PTD classifies the Egyptian system and Sumero-
> Akkadian cuneiform systems. I'm not sure that they are particularly
> similar to any other systems, though in the phonetic parts the
> Egyptian system is abjad-like and the Sumero-Akkadian system is
> syllabary-like.

logoconsonantal and logosyllabic respectively

> It makes a nonsense of PTD's scheme to call an abugida or Korean a
> syllabary; I believe that is why he regards it as 'necessary' to
> restrict the meaning of the term. (An alternative would be to find a
> more precise name for what he regards as a syllabary.)

You wanna call it a kana? Fine. Then Cherokee has a kana and Cree
doesn't.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...