--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:

> At 14:10 +0000 2005-08-20, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> >I don't believe this is BukElE's structure. What it reflects is
> >that *later* distinctions only had to distinguish the consonants.
> >If you look at the Ndole syllabary, you can seen smilarities within
> >rows - BHI and BHU,

Typo there - I should have said BHI and BHA.

> I think you're reaching there.

> >FA, FU and FO,
>
> Eh? I don't se *anything* in that horizontal grouping.

A theme of two circles, one above the other.

> >TI and TU?,
>
> Nor there.

Top wavy line <-> circle
Pair of non-diacritic dots resting on or nestling in a line.

> >LO and LOO,
>
> Seriously, as I go down the list I am looking at the Ndole syllabary
> in Figure 5. You see a relationship between LO and LOO here?

Assume LO is written like an S or lower case delta. Switch the
direction of the top line, and continue the loop across the stem, and
you have an approximation to the LOO.

> >NJEE and JOO (still visible in modern YEE and YOO),
>
> Figure 5 gives neither NJEE nor JOO.

In the row labelled 'y' I see VAI SYLLABLE YA, VAI SYLLABLE NJEE, VAI
SYLLABLE CE and VAI SYLLABLE JOO. One might see the last two as VAI
SYLLABLE YE and VAI SYLLABLE NJOO - it seems that CE and YE may once
have been glyph variants (Dalby's 1849 form seems to be YE), and
Dalby's 1962 entry gives JOO and NJOO as variants of one another.

> >KI and KU,
>
> I don't see it. A spiral and a circle?

A circle with a dot. I'm talking about deliberate modifications - Vai
started as a constructed script. Moreover, compare the variations for
NGGI. Dalby has a spiral for the loop, while Tucker has a circle with
a dot.

> >and no end of plausible relationships in the /w/-row.
>
> I don't see it.
>
> What I do see in the Ndole chart is still a set of vertical
> relationships. WI-I, FA-VA, SA-ZA, KA-GA, KEE-JEE, KPOO-GBOO. I
> really don't see those horizontal relationships you suggest, though.
>
> >There's quite a leaping around in the similarity of KI, CI and CA.
>
> Ndole has no C- series at all.

Dalby gives an 1849 form for CI.

> >(Is CA modern? Dalby surmised so.)
>
> Massaquoi gives it.

That's 1911.

> >The parallel relationship between Ndole KEE and JEE is quite
> >visible. This is the sort of relatinship Michael thinks is
> >fundamental.

> I think it's a feature, certainly. And became more of a feature as
> time went on.

Mostly, if not entirely within the same articulation/air-stream group.
The only possible exception I can see is YO formed as a ZOO with dots
within the circles, and the occasional (1962 variant in Dalby and in
the undated teach-yourself book) ZOO with dots either side used as an
alternative to NJO. (NJO is JO with dots on either side, or with a
double base line if JO is the same as CO without its dots.) It could
be circular - Ndole JO and ZOO are similar enough for one to be a
deliberate modification of the other. Indeed, the two symbols for
/ñJ\O/ may ultimately be true glyph variants.

> >However, these (KI-CI, KEE-JEE) are the longest range relationships
> >I can see, and /k/ and /c/ need not be so very far apart before
> >front vowels.
>
> What Creswick 1867 gives for CI (he writes "Che" and KI ("Ke") do not
> look alike.

Dalby's 1849 CI is clearly his 1849 KI with two horizontal strokes added.

> >One could

argue for ordering the syllables first by

> >place-of-articulation/air-stream (grouping /l/ with the dental
> >implosives as they sound similar), then by vowel, then manner of the
> >consonant and finally by nasalisation of the vowel. (/h/, /w/, and
> >/N/ would be grouped with vowel-initial.)
>
> If you were inventing a ConScript, you might want to do that.

Wasn't the Vai script constructed?

> >However, for practical purposes it is probably easier not to order
> >by place of articulation at the primary level. Primary ordering by
> >vowel gives an ordering that is probably friendliest for using a
> >list to identify symbols from their shapes.
>
> That's why we did it.

That's what I thought.

> >Neither helps with co-incidental similaries such as FA and CE or
> >FOO, TA and KE.
>
> Well, Vai isn't Tengwar.

And perhaps it isn't large enough for a set of 'radicals' (90 and
condensing) :)

Richard.