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

>wrote:

> Mr. Walker -- who I understand is called Bill -- was writing decades
> before the distinction was introduced.

I am sure that the distinction was always evident. One would have to be
blind not to notice that Cherokee was unanalysable and Cree and
Potawatomi were analytic. That is why they were called second
syllabaries or neosyllabaries by Cohen.

However, that distinction was not necessarily relevant to Walker's
article. It was a great article (1969)for a number of reasons unrelated
to formal aspects of script.

Suzanne