Re: [OT] ANN: Site about scripts

From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:46:13 EDT


Lars,

> * Kenneth Whistler (in an earlier posting)
> |
> | 2. Script B is a de novo design influenced strongly by Script A.
> |
> | 3. Script B borrowed formal and/or functional characteristics of
> | Script A.
>

> Unless I am missing something both 2. and 3. involves a cloning of
> concepts, and the difference is that in 2. the design is new, while in
> 3. it is not.
>
> So it seems these situations can be captured in this way:
>
> 2: Script has no derived-from relationship, but at least one
> influenced-by relationship
>
> 3: Script has a derived-from relationship, and zero or more
> influenced-by relationships
>
> Am I right? (I'm asking because I need to be able to express this in
> terms of topic maps, and your original formulations do not work
> entirely inside that model.)

This is about what I was driving at. Although I might still
quibble with your terminology a bit. Features that are borrowed
from alien systems are still "derived from" those alien systems.
That is, you can trace a direct historic relationship of
descent from the *other* system.

The key distinction is between featural changes that result from
changes motivated internally in the system (e.g., changes in
letter forms due to handwriting practice, which might result
in mergers or splits in forms, or reorganization of a system),
and changes which represent direct lifting of features from
an external system. The former a historical linguist would
characterize as "genetic", and the latter as "borrowings". And
I think the same principles apply to other systems, such as
writing systems, as well as to phonological and other purely
linguistic systems.

--Ken



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 13:32:08 EDT