From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 5256
Date: 2005-08-07
> suzmccarth wrote:One source of information is the Vai propsoal for Unicode,
> >
> > --- 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?