suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- 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.

See the publications of Konrad Tuchscherer.

> Evans mission superiors criticized his use of the sllabary. And his
> 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.

"It seems"? Do you not know David Dalby's articles? See Singler's
bibliography in WWS.

How did Taylor, let alone Sampson, "suppress" literacy? Isaac Taylor was
a Durham (IIRC) cathedral canon and antiquarian. Sampson is a right-wing
ideologue who used to dabble in linguistics. (He's moved on to fighting
with the Chomskyans full-time in "cognitive science.")

> So my question is not so much 'why a syllabary?' as 'why not a
> 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?

For anyone who needed to produce literacy materials (such as Bible
translations). There are no Mende typewriters.

Do you have any evidence that anyone thought "syllabary bad, alphabet
good"?

> IMHO 1880 to 1980 was the century of the alphabet. The preceding
> 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.

He did??? Where, and what did he say?

Can you tell me anything about the Henry Smith Williams *History of the
Art of Writing* you mentioned last week? I've discovered that it's four
boxes of plates, either 50 per box, or "203 [i.e. 228] plates," which I
am stumped by; and that I actually have a work by Mr. Smith Williams --
the Wonder Book of the World's Knowledge (1935), ten little volumes of
gee whiz! factoids that would amuse the kiddies. (They certainly amused
this kiddie, 40 years ago.)

There's a copy available for purchase for considerably less than any
other available copy, which is "missing plates 155 and 157." Since
they're from the "Oriental" set, I imagine they'd be important to me.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...