Re: Neosyllabaries

suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth" <suzmccarth@...> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> I am guessing that it might be Hans Jensen, 1969. I can't think of
> anyone earlier than that.

The first edition of Jensen is 1938. (I've never seen it.)

And, as I discuss at length in IOS 20 (2002 [1999]), it was Taylor who
first, AFAICT, introduced the tripartite classification (1883/1899).

> I am trying to follow your reasoning when you say about the terms
> neosullabary, semisyllabary and pseudo-alphabet "these terms
> misleadingly suggest that the abugida is a sub-type, or hybrid of
> alphabet or syllabary - a notion that has lead to unfortunate
> historical/evolutionary notions about the history of writing." page 4.
> However, you excuse alphasyllabary.

I suspect you're addressing me, even though you quote only yourself
above.

How do you manage to overlook the footnote to that very passage?

Believe me, I argued with Bill about the inappropriateness of his term,
and we finally agreed he could have it in the chapters he was
responsible for, including, obviously, South and Southeast Asia.

He then went on to make that the topic of his King Sejong presentation
-- he was one of only two or three participants to appear both in Seoul
and in Urbana -- and published the same article in both *Written
Language and Literacy* and *Studies in the Linguistic Sciences* (the
latter being the official publication of the symposia).
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...