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

>
> It is your assumption that I know nothing about
> the acquisition of literacy. But you wouldn't
> know one way or another.

No. I was guessing from the Vai conversation. Since there were
issues that came up there that are just basic, very basic - to the
acquisition of literacy, but as you say - I wouldn't know - other
than the alphabet conversation.

>
> >'Complicated and unreadable' I can guarantee you that it is not.
>
> It is an appallingly complex and illegible
> writing system, in my opinion, with all its
> subtle little twists and turns. ... There is nothing organic
> whatsoever in the design of this writing system.
> Perhaps your background in ductus and legibility
> is wanting here.

And Syllabics, that is where some of my background lies. In fact, I
have persoanlly questioned internationally recognized experts in
literacy for several languages - Chinese, Cree, Indic scripts, etc.
and cannot find a connection between orientation and lack of
legibility, or lack of orientation and legibility.

I admit that it *seems* to be related, but in fact, there is no
evidence that it is. I have done this research over many years. Are
you aware of some research that I have missed? I would be most
grateful to you for sharing it with me, I have been looking for
years.

> You are mistaken.

You did refer to the constructed languages page - I was
not 'mistaken' but it is possible I misunderstood your reason as you
state it below.

The French Wikipedia has no

> dedicated page on Artificial Scripts, so I gave a
> pointer to what was available; to assist
> interested Franophones with an introduction to
> the concept. I also gave a link to the English
> version of that same subject matter, as well as a
> link to the Artifical scripts article.
>
>
> >Then you refer to the artificial script page, where Hangul is also
> >mentioned as a borderline case. Would you
> >unencode Hangul to be consistent. Happy hangul
> >Day!!
>
> "An artificial or constructed script (also
> conscript or neography) is a term for new writing
> systems specifically devised by specific known
> individuals, rather than having naturally evolved
> as part of a culture like a natural script",
> according to that Wikipedia article. Looks as
> though you didn't really read this.

I quote from that page,

"The Korean Hangul writing system is a borderline case, since the
time, place, sponsor, and general conditions of its invention are
well known, but not the exact names of the people who developed it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_script

As I said, Hangul is a borderline case. Oddly, Cree Syllabics
doesn't make it onto the artiicial scripts page although it is
devised by a specifically known individual, and it has no greater
validity than Cherokee or the Pollard script, which are mentioned.
There seems to be a continuum. This page does not make clear the
difference between a 'natural' script and an artificial script.
After all scripts are not like languages, they are *all* artefacts
of human culture.

What was it that I did not read? I simply remarked that Hangul was
on that page and surely we wouldn't use that as criteria for not
encoding it.

Having checked the history page for artificial scripts, wikipedia, I
see that the page you wrote/edited did not include Hangul, but the
page has been altered since to include Hangul, but still does not
include Syllabics. So when quoting wikipedia we must supply a date
to specify which version of the page we are quoting.

> Mandombe is an artificial script or conscript.
> It's also a nasty complicated mess and I can't
> imagine that it has much hope of being
> particularly useful to millions of Kikongo
> speakers. Did you read what Denis Jacquerye wrote
> about it in Unicode-Afrique?

I have been sharing details with Denis and I don't find it
complicated. It may be that without modification it will not suit
related languages. I believe that Syllabics was added to
considerably. There was one ligature I had not seen a good example
of and wanted clarification on - that's it.

> Just because some guy in California invents a
> neat and tidy script like Ewellic doesn't mean
> that it is a particularly good or useful script
> either.

With all due respect to Doug Ewell, we talked about his writing
system some time ago, and I remarked that a minor difficulty might
be that the similar height of the letters does not allow words to
develop a distinctive word shape. (Orientation, I commented to him,
does not impress me as a difficulty, given the historic use of that
factor.) Other than that, it is as you say neat and tidy.

Mandombe does, in fact, create very distinct and immediately
recognizable word shapes. I am somewhat hindered from reading this
script by not knowing Kikongo - I do admit that.

> Shavian, likewise, has a
> particular place in the literature associated
> with the orthography of the English language,
> also with regard to the prize left by a renowned
> Irish writer.

A prize - this is legitimacy?

> Bah. This isn't a practical writing system. It's
> a puzzle, a game. Nothing wrong with that, of
> course. But it's a conscript, until real use
> proves otherwise.

http://abecedaria.blogspot.com/2005/10/mandomb-in-action.html

I am sorry, Michael, but you have triggered my passionate and long-
standing (15 years) defense of scripts which use orientation as a
meaningful attribute.

Respectfully,

Suzanne