suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- 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?

I assume he refers to a phonological analysis of the Vai language.

> > 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.

I suggest you look at the evidence for what was created in the 1830s, as
gathered by e.g. Tuchscherer, or before him by Dalby in the early 1960s.

> 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.

How many?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...