From: suzmccarth
Message: 5044
Date: 2005-05-04
> suzmccarth wrote:I haven't seen a copy of Taylor recently to check - there isn't one
> > >
> > > How did Taylor, <snip> "suppress" literacy? Isaac Taylor was
> > > a Durham (IIRC) cathedral canon and antiquarian.
> >
> > No, Suppress use of syllabics. If you believe that the alphabet
>>is
> > the most advanced then a syllabary must be less advanced.
>
> Does he believe the alphabet is the most advanced?
>2000); and
> BTW (apropos of a different message or thread)
>
> Over the weekend I found a typographic display of the kana called a
> Japanese alphabet (in a book by Stephen Heller, extremely prolific
> writer on design) & colleague on Art Deco typography from ca.
> noted that Taylor calls the Indian scripts "alphabets" (notnotated
> "syllabaries" -- but he was _barely_ aware of how vowels were
> and may not have realized even that some vowel symbols appear tothe
> left of, i.e. before, the consonant symbols for the consonantsthat the
> vowels follow).Maybe Fevrier and Cohen were the first by calling them
> I don't think Gelb would have said otherwise, if he'd everexpressed an
> opinion on literacy.I suppose many scholars had no opinion on literacy. However, Powell
>Bible
> > > For anyone who needed to produce literacy materials (such as
> > > translations). There are no Mende typewriters.bibles,
> >
> > But there were Syllabics typewriters in Canada, newspapers,
> > newsletters, etc.http://www.aipainunavik.com/about/e_brief_history.html
>
> There are fewer than 86 (or 84 or 88) symbols, no?