From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 5448
Date: 2005-08-20
> At 14:10 +0000 2005-08-20, Richard Wordingham wrote:Typo there - I should have said BHI and BHA.
>
> >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,
> I think you're reaching there.A theme of two circles, one above the other.
> >FA, FU and FO,
>
> Eh? I don't se *anything* in that horizontal grouping.
> >TI and TU?,Top wavy line <-> circle
>
> Nor there.
> >LO and LOO,Assume LO is written like an S or lower case delta. Switch the
>
> 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?
> >NJEE and JOO (still visible in modern YEE and YOO),In the row labelled 'y' I see VAI SYLLABLE YA, VAI SYLLABLE NJEE, VAI
>
> Figure 5 gives neither NJEE nor JOO.
> >KI and KU,A circle with a dot. I'm talking about deliberate modifications - Vai
>
> I don't see it. A spiral and a circle?
> >and no end of plausible relationships in the /w/-row.Dalby gives an 1849 form for CI.
>
> 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.
> >(Is CA modern? Dalby surmised so.)That's 1911.
>
> Massaquoi gives it.
> >The parallel relationship between Ndole KEE and JEE is quiteMostly, if not entirely within the same articulation/air-stream group.
> >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.
> >However, these (KI-CI, KEE-JEE) are the longest range relationshipsDalby's 1849 CI is clearly his 1849 KI with two horizontal strokes added.
> >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.
> >One couldargue for ordering the syllables first by
> >place-of-articulation/air-stream (grouping /l/ with the dentalWasn't the Vai script constructed?
> >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.
> >However, for practical purposes it is probably easier not to orderThat's what I thought.
> >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.
> >Neither helps with co-incidental similaries such as FA and CE orAnd perhaps it isn't large enough for a set of 'radicals' (90 and
> >FOO, TA and KE.
>
> Well, Vai isn't Tengwar.