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

> suzmccarth wrote:
>> "Mora" is a technical term in phonological analysis, and it has

nothing

> to do with writing.

What do you think Singler means by 'mora' in his chapter?

>
> Nonsense. "Linguists" did not create 140-160 unneeded symbols.

Singler clearly states that at the 1962 conference, said to be
dominated by western trained Vai scholars, rather than by script
users, participants 'filled in the blanks creating symbols where
none had existed before.' 'Most literates find the need for only 40
to 60 characters'. 'The seeming systematicity in the shape of the
characters is 'artificial, imposed in 1962 and never in fact widely
accepted by script users.'

One can only assume that script users did not 'need' the extra
symbols invented first in 1900 and then in 1962. I think Singler's
analysis is quite honest and also typical of what was happening in
the 1960's with the 'rationalization' or 'phonemicization' of
scripts a la Pike.

Singler has further concerns about the relationship of the chart to
ordinary use.

I am trying to step back and consider fairly the implications of
this orthography conference and the many others which took place in
other groups. However, it is clear that it happened, for better or
worse.

> There are no "new" symbols in Vai.

'creating symbols where none had existed before.' What have I
missed? Rows were added in 1900 and 1962 according to Singler.

Suzanne