Re: Neosyllabaries

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

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

<grammatim@...>

> > > > wrote:
> > > > > No. The important thing is to recognize _how different_

they

> > > > >are -- for
> > > > > a century they were all lumped together as "syllabaries,"
> > > >
> > > > Permit me to ask which century.
> > >
> > > Ca. 1890 to 1990.
> >
> > I cannot find or recall seeing any article or book on writing
> > systems for this time period that lumped Indic scripts with

Japanese

> > as syllabaries. I have checked Encyclopedia Brittanica for the
> > early, middle and more recent entries of this century.

I have these articles as photocopies and have lost pages of some of
them at one time through water damage. I'll have to check the
sources now.

It certainly appears that Atkinson, librarian as he was, included
the chart of _presumed_ descent for historic purposes, to argue
against it as he did.

My question stands - who lumped Indic scripts in with syllabaries
between 1890 and 1990? Given the lack of evidence I have to assume
that no one did.

Regards,

Suzanne