From: suzmccarth
Message: 5426
Date: 2005-08-17
>I got the Vai Unicode Proposal printed off today.
> Are these known to be loan words, or are this just a guess? Thesystem.
> 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
> And I get the impression that /mgb-/ does not occur in the text of*mgbu in
>the
> book of Ndole, which stacks up with the the lack of *mgbi and
> the modern language.According to Singler prenazalized are not necessary.
>even
> Collapse /w/, /h/ and /0/ (nothing) with oral vowels, and /w/, /h/,
> /0/ and /N/ with nasal vowels.
>
>
> Lack of distinction of /l/, /d_</ and /nd_</ is well documented,
> when there were three distinct symbols!Right.
>implosive.
> > 5. Collapse voiced consnants into unvoiced. minus 4 rows.
> >
> > 6. Possibly nasal syllables were marked with the related
>In the VUP page 5 "implosive consonants are far more frequent than
> Is this pure speculation?
>Looking at the early glyphs, I can persuadeor
> 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
> 4 out of 7)(or
>
> 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
> at least, very infrequently needed combinations) in the language'sBOO,
> combinations:
>
> No /pe,be,me/, no /pO,bO/ and MO seems to be related to POO and
> not PO and BO. Strike 2.(e.g.
>
> 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
> private letters or accounts) to make further progress, and withouta
> knowledge of Vai we'd probably have a hard time analysing them.
>
> Richard.