At 17:54 +0000 2005-08-20, Richard Wordingham wrote:

>Typo there - I should have said BHI and BHA.

OK, I don't think you are making much sense. Your connections are

> > 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.

I don't believe this is a real connection. The real connections are
clear: FEE-VEE, FI-VI, FA-VA, FOO-VOO, FU-VI, FO-VO, FE-VE.

Look at the KP-MGB-GB series. Lots of vertical connections. No
systematic horizontal connections at all.

> > >TI and TU?,
>
>Top wavy line <-> circle

Sorry. A dozen Vai characters have the top wavy line and trying to
equate this with a circle is, well, just folk-etymology, and not
convincing at that.

>Pair of non-diacritic dots resting on or nestling in a line.

Not credible.

> > 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.

There is nothing in the ductus of these two characters which makes
that credible. In the first place, I'm not about to "assume" how LO
is written. I'm going to look at the Ndole texts.

> > >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.

You don't see VAI SYLLABLE CE there. You see a character that in
Ndole is used ambiguously for JE/NJE/YE. This glyph is now used for
CE, and has modified to create other characters represent the others.

>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.

I think you're mixing levels and stages of the script

> > >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.

I see *no* horizontal relation between KI and KU.

> > >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.

You were talking about Ndole. In any case, 1962 CI is clearly the
same as 1849, and I would not posit a relation between that and 1849
KI. Creswick's CI isn't cognate with his KI.

> > >(Is CA modern? Dalby surmised so.)
>>
>> Massaquoi gives it.
>
>That's 1911.

Which is between 1849 and 1962. I suppose that makes it medieval.

>It could be circular - Ndole JO and ZOO are similar enough for one to be a
>deliberate modification of the other.

I should think coincidence rather.

> > 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.

Dalby isn't primary. Neither is Creswick, but in any case I don't buy
this link you've made.

> > >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?

We aren't constructing it now, so we aren't at liberty to change it
in the way that it seemed to me that you were suggesting.
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com