suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Became evident to whom?

To me. What's my theory about the origins of writing?

> This historical sequence has been known for a
> very long time. What information are you adding to Fevrier and
> Cohen? I have only noticed the change of label. I notice that the
> inherent 'a' vowel was discussed in Philippe Berger so I don't think
> that was unknown.

If you refuse to read anything I've published, there's no point in my
even opening your messages any more.

> If this sequence was not known the Indic scripts would not have been
> named neosyllabaries, syllabaries which came after alphabetic
> analysis.
>
> The difference between the two kinds of scripts was also recognized
> by everyone who said syllabic alphabets, alphabet-syllabaires. Just
> because it wasn't presented properly in generalist textbooks doesn't
> mean that it wasn't known by people working predominantly in scripts.

It was not known to I. J. Gelb. No other only American linguist wrote
about writing until after he died. (And Sampson came out only months
before that,and he has no theory/vision at all.)

> The important thing is to recognize that there is a similarity
> between these systems. In fact, once the CV units have been arranged
> together the unit can become more opaque over time. An abjad or
> alphabet cannot become more opaque because they are intrinsically
> segmental. An Indic script can since it has a syllabic unit.

No. The important thing is to recognize _how different_ they are -- for
a century they were all lumped together as "syllabaries," and the study
of the history of writing systems was at an impasse.

> In Cree the units are not divisible and in Tamil they are out of
> sequence. Since the consonants and vowels cannot be separated out of
> the visible graph _in order of sound production_ they will remain
> less accessible without explicit training. I believe Sproat quotes
> Faber on this.
>
> Sproat even adds the nescessity for linearity in this process. So the
> consonants and vowels must be in sequence, divisible and in line to
> qualify as a segmental system. Otherwise some type of syllabic system
> must be considered. (The literature may often use the term 'abugida'
> but any serious paper also mentions 'alphasyllabary' to identify what
> script features are present, analytic elements organized in syllabic
> units.)

What literature? What "serious paper"s?

> Right now on the internet I have found writing system classification
> more garbled than ever before, does that disqualify these terms? Here
> are some examples.

It certainly does, and this confusion may stem from the Unicode screwup
that was uncovered here last year.

> 1. Some sites quote three alphabetic types, alphabets, abjads and
> abugidas.

Then they must be "quoting" me, since no one used those terms before me.

> 2. Some say the scripts are in historic sequence from syllabary,
> abugida, abjad to alphabet.

That's a simple lie.

> 3. Some say syllabary, abugida, abjad and alphabet is a logographic
> to phonographic continuum.

Which is nonsense; there's nothing "logographic" about a syllabary. I
gather that's Sproat. (Sproat is now involved in a denial that Indus
Valley is a writing system.)

> Sad but true. Do I have a different solution for absurdity? I doubt
> there is much hope but ...
>
> (I don't want to mess around with anyone's word or invent words of my
> own.)
>
> I want to say there are syllabic systems and segmental systems. You
> yourself know the importance of the syllable vs the segment to judge
> from the title of one of your articles. This is the _fundamental_
> basis of writing system classification - surely that is what you were
> saying.

Why don't you read the article, rather than "judg[ing] from the title"?

> Some syllabic systems are entirely non-divisible and opaque because
> they were not created out of segments, but as a whole out of
> originally meaningful syllabograms (logosyllobagrams?).

There is nothing "meaningful" about the characters of the Cherokee
syllabary.

There is nothing "meaningful" about the kana, except that they happen to
be simplified forms of Chinese characters used for their sound only.

> Other syllabic systems are constructed out of segmental elements
> organized in syllabic units by the inventors, using knowledge of the
> previously discovered segment, and once created are either more or
> less divisible or transparent.

And you don't see that there's a fundamentally different between
"entirely non-divisible and opaque" and "constructed out of segmental
elements" on the basis of the sophisticated grammatical analysis of
Panini's predecessors.

> The scripts which are less divisible, transparent or linear would
> normally be taught by syllable charts. Hence the Amharic syllabary,
> the Tamil syllabary, the Cree syllabary, the Korean syllabary ... in
> the other sense of the word, of course.

How they are taught has nothing to do with what they are.

There are traditions in many roman-alphabet languages of teaching by
syllable charts as well, as explained here last year.

> Why not say that there are two different stages of syllabic-type
> scripts, one before discovery of the segment and one after? That
> would finally get rid of the historic sequence mess which keeps
> getting passed around. It would focus on what is actually fundamental
> the syllable vs the segment.

Because that is not factually true.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...