Re: new script based on german stenography
|From:||J. 'Mach' Wust <j_mach_wust@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, August 17, 2004, 12:06|
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:43:40 -0400, John Cowan <jcowan@...>
>J. 'Mach' Wust scripsit:
>> However, this script isn't
>> a syllabary. It definitly is an alphabetic script in the broader sense of
>> that term, though I can't tell whether it's an alphabet in the narrower
>> sense, an abugida, or an abjad.
>It doesn't really fit into any of these classifications; as Daniels has
>said many times, the products of what he calls "sophisticated
>grammatogeny" don't necessarily fit his schema very well or even at all.
>This includes both Canadian Syllabics and Hangeul.
How about amplifying that scheme so that "sophisticated grammatogeny"
scripts (or conscripts) fit in as well? I believe that the following
distinction would be very useful for "alphetic" scripts (in a broad sense):
(i) Scripts where consonants and vowels are represented by equal letters.
(ii) Scripts where consonants and vowels are represented in different ways
(e.g. Canadian Syllabics, Hangeul, abugidas, abjads, German shorthand,
Pitman shorthand, etc.).
There may be further subdivisions in category (ii).
How to lable this distinction? Maybe we could call (ii) "analyzing
alphabets"? But how to call (i) then? "Unanalyzing alphabets"???
j. 'mach' wust