>Me> Older scripts (such as Egyptian hieroglyphs, Linear-B and
> > Cuneiform of manners of wedges) are syllabaric scripts
> > rather than logographic. Even in the earliest days of
> > carved Sumerian, "pictograms" could be used as rebuses,
> > a most unlogographic technique.
>Yes, many "logographic" scripts give syllabic contents to their
>pictograms,
In which case the Ancient Near Eastern Scripts aren't logographic in the sense of the Chinese example that most people bring up and they aren't good evidence of alphabetic scripts being a recent invention, both of which you claimed in support of western being ideogrammic/logographic.
>but, as in cunieform script (sumerian, babylonian and assyric),
>the syllabic content, i.e. how you pronounce them differs with
>the language spoken.
You get this with languages in the Roman script too! There are about three different ways of pronouncing J for example.
>Whether this is unlogographic or not I leave hence. Most pictograms
>have a logographic _and_ a syllabic content, and could be used as
>either. (This is, as I understand it, true even for modern Chinese Languages.)
Then why do you think Western should be an unchanging ideogrammic script?
>Anyway, I am basing this on the assumption that the West has age
>old texts in common that have not been changed, only interpreted
>in varying ways. Texts still read in their original form, like,
>say, the Koran.
But the Koran (and even the Torah) are written in alphabets!
>If it then is an alphabetical script, then they all have to write
>in a common language, like Latin, rather than in their own form
>of Western. Why does there not, in that case, exist written forms
>of the separete Western dialects? Or does it?
Those vulgate forms can exist. But what is being postulated is that as the Language in which God Wrote (cf attached affidavits to the Witnesses of the Abiding Book), the standard Western script has acquired a sanctity that impels every literate westerner to become conversant in it. The real world examples for this are: Latin, Attic Greek and Arabic
>Is written Western then always written Brithini/Tadeniti? Does,
>in essence, a Loskalmi have to learn Brithini to learn how to
>read.
No different IMO from a french or an english monk being forced to learn Latin.
>But is all (modern) Western script God Learner script? No.
Yes. Standardized by the Abiding Book. That counts more in the Malkioni world view than a complete edition of the Blue Book of Zzabur.
>The Brithini share the common Western script and would
>hardly go for such newfangled inventions.
They would throw up their hands and roll their eyes at the numerous neoglisms and innovations of a Malkioni in the same way Cicero would do it he saw an example of Church Latin. The basic sense of the text would be intelligible.
>You are not implying, I hope, that Auld Wyrmish is alphabetic, or
>even syllabic. That seems very odd for a language that is largely
>unpronounceable by humans ;-)
I am so implying. I have pointed out before that the 25% limit on Auld Wyrmish only applies to the spoken form and to not the written form, which is stated to have been invented by "clever humans". It is no different from learning ancient Egyptian and being ignorant of how the vowels were pronounced in Old Kingdom times.
>Did then the Tadeniti invent an alphabetic script, based on
>how the words were pronounced, without having a spoken
>language?
They had a thought language.
>An alphabetical script gives directions on how to pronounce a spoken
>word, which would be quite meaningless for somebody who does not have
>a spoken language.
Even ideas require simpler concepts and propositions on which to ground them.
Powered by hypermail