Re: Ethiopic writing Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??

On Mar 7, 7:03 am, phogl...@xxxxxx wrote:
On 6 maalis, 22:42, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Mar 6, 12:55 pm, phogl...@xxxxxx wrote:

On 6 maalis, 16:22, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 11:31 am, phogl...@xxxxxx wrote:

On 5 maalis, 17:34, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am not trying to score points, as you usually are. I am only
pointing out a fact that might be significant.

"Prove a point" and "make a point" have nothing to do with "scoring a
point."

I am not entirely convinced that you know the difference yourself.

I've been speaking the language for nearly 55 years. You obviously
haven't.

You are quite right - I have spoken English habitually only during my
seven-months stay in Ireland some eight years ago. I have always found
English more like a code than a language - I read books in it, but I
don't really speak it. It is not a "language" for me, in the sense
that Irish, German, Swedish, or Amharic for that matter, is a
language. English is a necessary evil; but if you acquire a real
Language, you have accomplished something.

Shakespeare.

Need I go any further?

Yes, you need. I have never understood why you people make such a fuss
of him. I don't say some of his plays aren't interesting and well-
written, but even among English classics, Byron suits my temperament
better.

Ok, in place of "Shakespeare," put "Byron," and the point made is
exactly the same.

Shakespeare? A skilled professional playwright, yes - but in
my opinion, the Shakespeare cult, for a non-native speaker of English,
is about as incomprehensible as the Pushkin cult in Russia.

So your problem is not with the English language, but with poetry
generally.

Maybe if there were any world-class poets in _your_ language, you'd
have a better understanding of what poetry is.

What would you like me to do, post the text of Skjaervo's article here
(minus the examples, of course)? I don't think the copyright owner
(Oxford University Press) would appreciate that.

You could post the full bibliographical data of what you regard as his
most important article, book, or paper.

How the hell should I know which is the "most important" work of his?
I'm no Iranist; all I know of his work is what he's written on Iranian
scripts for me and subsequently. He's a major contributor to the
_Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum_ of Ruediger Schmitt, to the
_Encyclopedia Iranica_ (which is available on line), and to the
_Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics_ (also on line, but I think
for an enormous fee).

I'll be seeing him next week at the AOS meeting in San Antonio. What
would you like me to ask him?

I do not suppose anything, and I know "paintbrush" is probably not the
correct English word. The appearance of the characters does leave the
impression that the desired forms are only attainable by using some
kind of special calligraphic instrument.

It's called a "pen." Probably a reed pen.

A reed pen? Now we are talking.

Um, what do you think people wrote with? Steel nibs appeared in the
19th century, after steel became cheap. Before that, it was reeds or
feathers.

Have you never even had any training in using a broadedge pen?

I am not entirely sure if the instrument I use for writing Irish
Gaelic script and German Black Letters is called a broadedge pen in
English. Would you be so kind as to give me a description of a
"broadedge pen"?

Its nib has a broad edge rather than a point. It can meet the paper at
any angle with respect to the baseline from 0 to 90 degrees. For
italic, the angle is typically 45 deg. For roman, 30 deg. For Irish
uncials and half-uncials, 10 deg. for blackletter, 20 deg. or so. For
Ethiopic, probably close to 0 deg.

Okay, it is the very tool.

It looks more
elegant and is easier to read, and I think it would be no problem to
modify the Arabic alphabet for use in Amharic. But of course, for
saying that you will call me a crypto-Muslim fundamentalist bigot.

No, your bigotry is exposed by such words as "crude," "unreadable,"
and non-"elegant."

People have these things called aesthetic preferences, and I very much
prefer the Arabic alphabet - for aesthetic reasons. But then I have
always been fascinated by calligraphy.

"Crude" and "unreadable" are not aesthetic judgments.

Please do not try to intimidate me. You know I am not afraid of you
anymore.-

Oh, you mean you don't know the meanings of the words "crude" and
"unreadable"? Then you shouldn't be using them.

Okay. Let's make it "difficult to read for the untrained eye"

Um, wouldn't that apply to any script in the world that you haven't
been "trained" in?

Not exactly. I am about as untrained in reading Georgian letters as in
reading Ethiopian writing, but I can guarantee that I find Georgian
letters more readable at this stage.

How unique of you.

Tastes differ.

No; you just claimed that you can read Georgian script without any
training in it.

Copnsidering that Georgian lettershapes are unrelated to the shapes of
the letters of any other alphabet, that's quite an achievement. Not
even taking into consideration that the Georgian language has no known
relatives outside the South Caucasus, so you don't even get help from
cognates (unless, of course, you speak Laz or Mingrelian).

BTW, Ethiopic script is often seen to be very similar to Armenian
script, even to the extent that it has been attributed to Armenian
missionaries, but since there is no resemblance in sound between
similar-looking letters, that makes no sense.

Again, I must agree with you. I happen to be intimately familiar with
Armenian script in the form that is used in the ex-Soviet republic of
Armenia.

Why do you say "ex-Soviet"?

Americans need to say "Republic of Georgia" because there is a US
state of Georgia. But there isn't any other Armenia anywhere else it
could be confused with.

and
"aesthetically somewhat less pleasing than Arabic calligraphy". Happy
now?-

Chacun a son gout. There's no tradition of rendering Ethiopic texts
unreadable for the sake of esthetic impression.

Calligraphy is not by definition the same as "rendering unreadable".-

Most Islamic calligraphy is not readily readable, and some resists all
attempts at interpretation.

You seem to have a more restricted definition of the concept of
"calligraphy" that I have.-

Ok, what do you think "calligraphy" means?

I call your attention to my very first journal article, "A
Calligraphic Approach to Aramaic Palaeography," published in the
Journal of Near Eastern Studies in 1982.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading