suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- 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.

As I said, no one _discussed_ Indic scripts. Sometimes they listed them
as syllabaries.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...