Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin
emunix.emich.edu>
Modesty would require me to have let Mark Aronoff's and Alexis Manaster Ramer's brief comments on phonemic orthographies stand on their own, but I must recom- mend to the List that you consult my distinction between "sophisticated" and "unsophisticated" script creation. Only the latter--the most familiar example is Cherokee script invented by Sequoyah, who knoew no other language and no- thing of phonetics--is relevant to discussions of script creation in antiquity. See my article in *Linguistics and Literacy*, ed. Downig, Lima, Noonan (Ben- jamins 1992 -== Milwaukee symposium 1988), and sec. 52 of *The World's Writing Systems*, ed. by me and Wm. Bright Oxford 1996).Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
On 10 Feb 1996, Alexis Manaster Ramer wrote: > completely phonemic orthographies designed by linguists do not > help us answer the question of whether such systems have arisen > on their own--without the help of modern linguistics--and even if so > why they are so rare (at best). As I see it, the following points appear to play an important role: (1) Eearliest writing systems either implemented existing own (ideo)graphs to also represent homonyms and, significant in this context, close homonyms, or accommodated a foreign writing system, founded upon a foreign system of phonemes. Both altenatives obviously led to imperfect phoneme-graph correspondences already at the beginnings of writing. In view of the exceptional high (apparent) degree of accuracy of Sanskrit Devanagari, it seems understandable that it is to ancient Sanscrit linguistics that we owe the beginnings of linguistic science. (2) The phonology of a language is in constant flux, but for various cultural reasons (sacredness of religious scriptures, canonization of epic and officialese texts, privileged social status or social exclusiveness of the educated), spelling tends to be conservative. So, corrections come too late, and then quickly become obsolete again. (3) Language is not uniform, being variegated not only in having many regional dialects, but also social dialects, professional and age-group jargons, so that even in the synchrony, a professionally reformed spelling will often (if not always) only be strictly phonemic for a part of the speakers. When the literary (non-unalphabetic) part of the population is a minority, it would not even necessarily be phonemic for the majority of speakers. Hope that wasn't a recitation of the obvious, sailing full steam past the actual topic of discussion. Waruno Mahdi tel: +49 30 8413 5407 Faradayweg 4-6 fax: +49 30 8413 3155 14195 Berlin email: warunoMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueparadox.rz-berlin.mpg.de Germany WWW: http://paradox.rz-berlin.mpg.de/