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

On Mar 15, 3:52 pm, hru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Herman Rubin) wrote:

I do not know all the ancient languages; I do not know
of too many modern ones which did this, although Hawaiian
is one such, and I believe Korean as well.
WHAT on earth are you accusing Hawaiian and Korean of having done?

There was written Hawaiian (not as clear as we would like
it) on bark cloth before European contact. It became
replaced by the use of the Latin alphabet.

There is ancient Korean, similar to Chinese characters.
This has now been almost completely replaced by a well-
designed alphabet, in which the printed characters are
formed from two to four letters.

There are three alternatives (but _you_ can't say that, because it
isn't "logical" that _alter_ can refer to three things, is it): you
are lying; you are ignorant; or you are stupid.

Which is it?

But Greek went form Linear B to alphabetic, and Philistine
went from Linear A to alphabetic. Egyptian went through
stages, but ended up as the alphabetic Coptic.
See previous posting. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS STUFF?????

The oldest Greek writings we have are in Linear B.

What does "went from" mean to you?

The later ones are alphabetic.

And the ones in between?

Similarly, Coptic is a direct descendent of ancient
Egyptian, which was used by Champollion to decode
Egyptian, using the Rosetta Stone.

Lying? Ignorant? or Stupid?

Idiographic writing was sufficiently well known in the
ancient Middle East that the Semites must have had some
such before introducing the alphabet. The same would
hold for the Persian and Indian languages; they would
have had some form of writing before introducing the
alphabet.
MY GOD, YOU ARE IGNORANT.

Do you think there was NO writing of these languages,
which ended up alphabetic, before the alphabet was
used for them?

I know the ancient writings a hell of a lot better than you do. What
does "ended up" mean?

Lying, Ignorant, or Stupid?

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast