Re: Ancient writing systems

On Apr 25, 6:01 pm, Richard Wordingham <jrw0...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 24, 4:13 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 21, 6:51 pm, Richard Wordingham <jrw0...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Note that PTD is using his definition of an alphabet, which requires
that all the vowels be represented (but not necessarily
distinguished).

What does "represented (but not necessarily distinguished)" mean, and
where dio you find anything like that in my work?

On p4 of WWS you say 'half a dozen fundamentally different types of
writing systems have been defined' and proceed to list
'logosyllabary', 'syllabary', 'abjad', 'alphabet' and 'abugida'. (Did
you intend 'featural systems' to be the sixth type?)

Featural systems are always the product of "sophisticated"
grammatogeny, so they lie outside the basic typology.

You define an
'alphabet' as a system in which the characters denote 'consonants' and
'vowels'.

Now, in many Indic writing systems (e.g. Hindi, Khmer, Tamil Brahmi I)
a plain consonant may represent consonant plus implicit vowel or
simply the consonant without any vowel. I presume you still count
these systems as abugidas, even though you can no longer say that the
'letters' represent consonant plus vowel, and therefore do not count
them as alphabets. So, what makes these systems abugidas rather than
alphabets? In this case, it is systematically implicit vowels - some
vowels systematically lack any representation.

Why are you guessing what the definition of "abugida" might be,
instead of looking it up?

To say that in an alphabet all vowels are represented suggests that

Show me an alphabet that omits some of the vowels?

each vowel should have its own symbol, but that is not true for

I really don't care what it "suggests" to you. If you want to discuss
_my_ definitions, then discuss _my_ definitions, not what you think
they might be.

Greek. Three pairs of short and long vowel are not distinguished. I
therefore said that for a system to be an alphabet, all vowels should
be 'represented (but not necessarily distinguished)'.

Fine! You go ahead and write up a typology with a different set of
types!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Hamza and Alif Confusion in Arabic
    ... > Although the Arabic alphabet is understood as a consonant alphabet ... short vowels are not admitted their own ... > a very important consonant, not only this position but also to be part ... Hamza is graphically small (it has the shape of 3Ain and is near ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Ancient writing systems
    ... a plain consonant may represent consonant plus implicit vowel or ... it is systematically implicit vowels - some ... vowels systematically lack any representation. ... To say that in an alphabet all vowels are represented suggests that ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: BBC does it again
    ... Either you distinguish the vowels by quality, ... principles of the IPA'. ... representation one chooses to use ought to express the same thing as the ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: SAMPA
    ... David wrote: ... symbols for vowels which are indistinguishable to me in ... representation of the diphthong used in "weight". ... John Briggs ...
    (uk.culture.language.english)
  • Re: BBC does it again
    ... Either you distinguish the vowels by quality, ... principles of the IPA'. ... It does seem reasonable to suggest that whatever phonemic representation one chooses to use ought to express the same thing as the phonemic model the same person uses to describe a language. ...
    (sci.lang)