From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 5022
Date: 2005-05-03
>See the publications of Konrad Tuchscherer.
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
>
> > Are the French and Italians told they are learning a syllabary
> rather
> > than an alphabet? I think not.
>
> I don't suppose they are. There are certainly some sociological
> factors at play and they would be interesting to explore. HOwever, i
> would rather start with a little more understanding of the social
> climate among missionaries in the first half of the 19th century.
> Evans mission superiors criticized his use of the sllabary. And his"It seems"? Do you not know David Dalby's articles? See Singler's
> English educated half-welsh, half-Mississauga coworker, Peter Jones
> did not seem to go along with the syllabics either.
>
> It was only after Evans moved north into a more remote area that he
> was able to print up a hymnbook using the syllabary. Through this
> hymnbook a certain number of Cree learned the syllabics and after
> that it had a life of its own. It was transmitted by the Cree from
> there on in. Henry steinauer, a New York (Cazenova seminary)
> educated Cree, did much of the Bible translation into Cree later.
>
> So his syllabary wasn't really the thing to do but still the idea
> ofa syllabary must have been floating around at the time -it was one
> of the options.
>
> It seems as if there were quite a few syllabaries that developed in
> Africa in the 19th century as well. I am in many ways more concerned
> about the fact that from the time of Isaac Taylor (1883) right up
> until Sampson (1985) westerners have suppressed literacy in a
> syllabic system in favour of the alphabet.
> So my question is not so much 'why a syllabary?' as 'why not aFor anyone who needed to produce literacy materials (such as Bible
> syllabary?' Check out this little story about the Mende syllabary.
> Linguists, educators and missionaries have consistently tried to
> replace syllabic systems where they were recent syllabaries and not
> supported institutionally.
>
> http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mende.htm
>
> Before the end of the 19th century a missionary might use a syllary
> but after that, oh no, an alphabet was most suited to literacy, that
> was the credo. I am not refering to the attempt to suppress the
> native languages. That is separate. In the 1960's and 70's
> linguists were really interested in reviving and supporting native
> languages. However, they honestly felt that it would all be so much
> easier if everyone used the alphabet. Easier for whom?
> IMHO 1880 to 1980 was the century of the alphabet. The precedingHe did??? Where, and what did he say?
> century was the century of the syllabary, decoding syllabaries,
> learning syllabic systems of India and the innovation of
> neosyllabaries, both pure and compositional syllabic notation.
>
> (What's become of Marco?)
>
> I don't know. I miss him. I was hoping a while back that he would
> know about G.Vico, who wrote about writing systems in the early 18th
> century.