Andrew Dunbar wrote:

>
> --- "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > i18n@... wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The way it notates final consonants has no
> > > > bearing on its typology. Kana also indicate the
> > > > final consonant with a special character, but
> > > > that doesn't keep them from being syllabaries.
> > >
> > > Wondering - is that evidence of how the writing
> > > system evolved from the spoken language? The sound
> > > represented by the "final consonant" entry in
> > > kana does in fact have the same "vocal length"
> > > quality as the other
> >
> > called "mora"
> >
> > > entries, even though it is an exception to the CV
> > > rule of the kana table organization.
> > >
> > > So, is it safe to say that the writing system (in
> > > Japanese at least) is subordinate to the spoken
> > > language?
> >
> > Where is it not?
> >
> > > I mean, given that either the spoken can/could
> > > have changed to allow the writing system to be
> > > exception free, or the writing system can reflect
> > > the spoken sounds at the cost of having exceptions
> > > in the CV table layout, what can we infer from the
> > > historical choices/evolution in this matter? Does
> > > it vary by language/writing system pairs?
> >
> > ? Since the vast majority of humans have never been
> > literate, it would be quite difficult for a writing
> > system to have any but the slightest effect on its
> > language.
>
> In very modern times spoken English has been affected
> by written English when formerly literary terms have
> crossed in the vernacular etc. Pronunciation
> misanalysed from spelling has happened a few times.
> The British/Australian way of saying "herb" with the
> "h" pronounced springs to mind.

"Written English" and "writing system" are not at all the same thing.

> I think it's pretty safe to say that the persistent
> Chinese view of their own language(s) as monosyllabic
> despite bisyllabic words now being the norm, would be
> another case of written language exerting pressure on
> the spoken language or at least on how the spoken
> language is thought about.
>
> Of course literacy rates in English and Chinese are
> have both been pretty high.
>
> But I would put this under the "slightest affect"
> category and agree totally with Mr Daniels.

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...