--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth" <suzmccarth@...> wrote:

> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth" <suzmccarth@...> wrote:

> On rereading Singler I decided that there could have been about 63
> original symbols. What do you think?
>
> p, b_ (implosive), kp, f, t, d_, s, k, V
>
> 9 X 7 = 63
>
> I think these following rows are the most recent in time.
>
> 1. v, z, and 3 out of 4 rows of palatals. Take off 5 rows. Loan words
> only.

Are these known to be loan words, or are this just a guess? The
symbols for /zo/ (ZOO), /zO/ (ZO?) and /jO/ (YO) had a theme of two
vertical circles, so they dont seem to be aftwerthoughs in the system.

> 2. All prenasalized stops can be collapsed into the related implosive
> or other stop consonant. They were not marked in the sample text.
> minus 4 rows

And I get the impression that /mgb-/ does not occur in the text of the
book of Ndole, which stacks up with the the lack of *mgbi and *mgbu in
the modern language.

> 3. w and h row - minus 2 rows

Collapse /w/, /h/ and /0/ (nothing) with oral vowels, and /w/, /h/,
/0/ and /N/ with nasal vowels.

> 4. collapse l into d or y. minus 1 row

Lack of distinction of /l/, /d_</ and /nd_</ is well documented, even
when there were three distinct symbols!

> 5. Collapse voiced consnants into unvoiced. minus 4 rows.
>
> 6. Possibly nasal syllables were marked with the related implosive.

Is this pure speculation? Looking at the early glyphs, I can persuade
myself that there were the following lacks of consonant distinctions:

1. h v. w v. 0

2. N v. h~ v. w~ v. 0~

3. p v. b v. m (but only p v. b look like a late distinction in the
standard syllabary - 4 cases out of 7)

4. b_< v. mb_< (6 out of 7 look like late distinctions)

5. kp v. gb v. mgb (All the mgb characters are modifications of
others; at least 3 of 7 kp v. gb distinctions look late)

6. f v. v (7 out of 7 look like late distinctions)

7. t v. d. v. n (but only t v. d looks liks a late distinction - 3 or
4 out of 7)

8. l v. d_< v. nd_<

9. s v. z (5 out of 7 look look late distinctions)

10. c v. J\ v. ñJ\ v. j (In 5 of 7 cases, 3 or more look like late
distinctions)

11. k v. g v. Ng v. ñ

12. Syllabic nasal.

> That gives only 63 symbols left.

This comes roughly to 11 lots of 7 - you didn't count for the
palatals, and I think at least one set of nasals is needed.

Although my idea looks like 78 symbols, there do seem to be gaps (or
at least, very infrequently needed combinations) in the language's
combinations:

No /pe,be,me/, no /pO,bO/ and MO seems to be related to POO and BOO,
not PO and BO. Strike 2.

No /hu~,wu~,u~,Nu/, no /he~,we~,e~,Ne/, no /ho~,wo~,o~,No/. Strike
another 3.

That still leaves 73 symbols!

This discussion is rather speculative - I suspect we need texts (e.g.
private letters or accounts) to make further progress, and without a
knowledge of Vai we'd probably have a hard time analysing them.

Richard.