Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 07:55 -0400 2005-08-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >Why you prefer the vertical arrangement isn't interesting to me,
>
> Does this mean that you haven't, or won't, read the documente? That'd
> be a pity. There is a lot of interesting information about Vai in it.

It's a rather large download. Time vs. intrinsic interest argues against
it.

> It was necessary for us to determine a linear order for Vai letters
> for sorting.

For _you_ to do sorting. Is there evidence that it's ever been used for
"sorting" previously? If the symbols had numerical values, that would be
prima facie evidence.

> A horizontal order, with consonants primary, masks the
> structure of the script, while a vartical order, with the vowels
> primary, reveals it.
>
> >but what do you mean by "real structure"?
>
> The Vai script's glyphs have relations between them, where groups of
> syllables with related consonants are clustered together, within
> final-vowel classes. This is different from the structure of some
> other scripts, like Canadian Syllabics, where the glyphs
> relationships are consonant-based.

"Related consonants"? "Clustered together"? If you haven't been able to
determine the original order, how can you say what's "related" and
what's "clustered"?

We already know that there's no correlation between graphics and sounds.

> To put it another way, in Vai, CE-JE-NJE-YE are related; CEE CI CA
> COO CU CO CE are not.
>
> >What is the "real structure" of the English alphabet?
>
> It hasn't got one, apart from sets like I/J and U/V/W. Its order is
> inherited from the Phoenician. Vai, on the other hand, shows an
> internal structure.

If you don't know the original order, how can you determine its
structure?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...