A vivid commentary on Jewish survival and Jewish speech communities that will be enjoyed by the general reader, and is essential reading for students and researchers interested in the study of Middle Eastern languages, Jewish studies, and sociolinguistics.
AUTHOR: Coulmas, Florian TITLE: Writing Systems SUBTITLE: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis SERIES: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press YEAR: 2003
Reviewer: Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City, NJ
''That such a book as this should have been permitted to go forth to the world with the _imprimatur_ of the University of Cambridge, affords matter for very grave reflection.'' --John Churton Collins, 1886
This is the forty-fourth contribution to the distinguished series of Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics (the fifty-first, counting second editions), but it might have inspired Mr. Collins to repeat his remark (on a work by Edmund Gosse) some sixscore years on (Cohen 2003). Florian Coulmas is a sociolinguist who from time to time addresses writing systems, and his work on the place of writing in society is always insightful and rewarding. He has also published three books on writing systems _per se_ -- *The Writing Systems of the World* (1989), *The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems* (1996), and the volume under review. Unfortunately, however, his attention to detail in this volume has not met Cambridge's wonted standard.
The book begins with a (misguided) Note on Fonts. ''A font for a script that was used 3,500 years ago,'' the author claims, ''is anachronistic. Using it in a scholarly book amounts to a distortion and to underestimating the importance of media'' (xviii). While this is true to an extent for his example of Linear B (where no one uses such fonts, because the transliteration is straightforward), it is most emphatically not true for Egyptian hieroglyphs -- any philological treatment of the language uses typeset hieroglyphs to a very great extent, because it is virtually impossible to transliterate the signs with sufficient clarity to support the discussion, and because transcriptions of ancient Egyptian remain speculative as to the vowels (and as to the values of some consonants). As it happens, even for contemporary scripts, Coulmas uses very, very few script examples within the text (and some of those few are quite mistaken; see below).
Chapter 1: What Is Writing? (1-17)
In the first chapter, Coulmas surveys various definitions of writing, beginning with Aristotle's, and contrasting Saussure's well-known banishment of written language from the purview of descriptive linguistics with the Eastern (scil. Chinese) tradition that still accords the written sign pride of place; he finds in I. J. Gelb (1952/1963) the notion ''that writing _became_ a device for expressing language rather than having been such a device from its inception'' (15). But this is a distortion of Gelb's position; Gelb, unlike Coulmas, carefully distinguished synchronic description from diachronic explanation. Coulmas also slides, apparently unwittingly, from Gelb's statement that writing expresses _language_ to a claim that writing expresses _speech_ (16) --a straw position against which he proceeds to argue.
Chapter 2: The Basic Options: Meaning and Sound (18-37)
Coulmas's second chapter concerns visible representations of meaning that are not writing (what Gelb called ''forerunners'' of writing, although none of them actually ''foreran'' writing; DeFrancis 1989), and also iconic representations of speech such as Korean hangul and Bell's Visible Speech. It culminates with lists of four ''assumptions'' and three ''principles'' (33):
Writing and speech are distinct systems. They are related in a variety of complex ways. Speech and writing have both shared and distinct functions. The bio-mechanics of the production and reception of speech and writing are different.
the principle of autonomy of the graphic system the principle of interpretation the principle of historicity
As in most treatments of writing systems that enunciate ''principles'' in their opening chapters (Daniels 2002: 94), these principles are subsequently pretty much ignored. The chapter concludes with a ''Note on terminology and notation.''
Chapter 3: Signs of Words (38-61)
Seven chapters follow that treat the various ways units of writing are paired with units of language. Each begins with an attempt to define the unit in question linguistically and follows with a description of one or two writing systems operating at that level -- in chapter 3, Sumerian and Chinese exemplify logographic writing.
Chapter 4: Signs of Syllables (62-88)
A number of writing systems, modern and ancient, are exhibited to represent syllabographic writing, but none is presented in detail.
Chapter 5: Signs of Segments (89-108)
The roman alphabet, primarily as used for English but also as supplemented with diacritics and with additional forms (as in the International Phonetic Alphabet), is the topic of this chapter.
Chapter 6: Consonants and Vowels (109-30)
This chapter attempts to discuss Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek.
Chapter 7: Vowel Incorporation (131-50)
Several scripts of South and Southeast Asia, in which vowels are represented by alterations of basic consonant symbols, are presented.
Chapter 8: Analysis and Interpretation (151-67)
The principal example here is Korean hangul, in which letters of the alphabet were originally intended to iconically represent the contours of the vocal tract used in producing their sounds, additional strokes on letters represent phonetic features, and the letters are combined into syllable units.
Chapter 9: Mixed Systems (168-89)
Egyptian, Akkadian, Japanese, and English are discussed here.
Chapter 10: History of Writing (190-207)
A highly compressed history is presented.
Chapter 11: Psycholinguistics of Writing (210-22) Chapter 12: Sociolinguistics of Writing (223-41)
Brief surveys of reading and writing, and of literacy, standardization, and spelling reform round out the volume.
Appendix: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 1 (242-46)
Although this appendix is referred to nowhere in the book, it offers its passage in 21 languages, 10 in roman alphabets, 5 of the others without transliteration, and none with analysis to suggest how they represent the meaning of the text.
A bibliography and indexes of names and subjects follow.
In evaluating Coulmas's *Writing Systems*, we can invoke Chomsky's old criteria of observational adequacy, descriptive adequacy, and explanatory adequacy (1964: 924). The first might assess factual accuracy, the second the organization of information, and the third the analytic understanding of writing. The book fails on all three counts.
Readers uninterested in a catalog of errors might skip to the section titled ''DESCRIPTIVE ADEQUACY.''
''The lowest level of success is achieved if the grammar presents the observed primary data correctly'' (Chomsky 1964: 923f.).
This book is wrong, as Humpty Dumpty once said, from beginning to end. The very first indisputable factual mistake is both inexcusable and prototypical: the noted linguist Fred Householder is called ''Frank'' (12, cf. 251). This cavalier attitude toward proper names is pervasive. In the bibliography alone we find Laroch for Laroche, Algeria for Alegria, Empleton for Embleton, Givon for Givón, Rölling for Röllig, and a ''John'' M. Unger listed separately from J[ames] Marshall Unger. This treatment of data that are so easily checked does not bode well for treatment of less familiar materials, such as details of writing systems and their history.
I will begin my catalog of errors in the areas with which I am most familiar, writing systems for Semitic languages, following these with examples that are so egregious as to be evident to the non-specialist.
General. To baldly assert that when using ''Semitic consonantal alphabets'' vowels ''are indicated optionally'' (113) is a vast oversimplification. In Phoenician writing, vowels are never indicated. In Ancient Hebrew, some long vowels are indicated by means of some of the consonant letters (the label for them is _matres lectionis_ 'mothers of reading'), and in Arabic all long vowels are always indicated (with a handful of lexically determined exceptions). The vowel-indication systems that were introduced during the first millennium CE for Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic are of course optional, but they are not the only device for notating vowels. C seems unaware that he echoes the consensus of scholars in rejecting Gelb's claim that the Semitic consonantaries represent ''syllables with indeterminate vowel,'' since he puts it as ''Following O'Connor (1996) [i.e. in Daniels & Bright 1996, henceforth WWS] I, therefore consider Semitic writing as encoding the consonants of the West Semitic languages'' (114). In discussing the absence of V-letters he adduces the non-existence of vowel-initial words in West Semitic languages, but fails to take into account the probable inspiration for the West Semitic signary from the consonant-only Egyptian writing system; but when he goes on to inquire, ''What if V-initial words ... need to be written?'' (127), he appears to be unaware of the existence of Ugaritic writing, a form of West Semitic script used in a city-state where over half a dozen languages were spoken, among them ones with initial vowels, which includes extra letters that (when writing Semitic) denote glottal stop followed by /i/ or /u/ (the original Alep-equivalent being used for glottal stop followed by /a/). Where C does allude to an Egyptian-Semitic connection, in discussing ''Proto-Sinaitic'' (194), he offers as a reference a 1948 article rather than the 1966 revised edition of the work of W. F. Albright, which perhaps ought not to be cited at all in an elementary textbook in view of its refutation in the next work cited in the same footnote, Sass 1988.
Hebrew. The term ''Paleo-Hebrew'' does not refer to the ''script which became extinct in antiquity when the Hebrews adopted a cursive variety of the Aramaic alphabet from which eventually the 'Square' Hebrew/Jewish script evolved,'' or to the Phoenician alphabet (116bis); it is the label for an archaizing revival of the earlier Hebrew script, at the time the Dead Sea Scrolls were being written around the turn of the Era, which was used within documents otherwise in Square Hebrew letters for the Tetragrammaton (the four-letter sacred name of God), for a scroll of Leviticus, and on coins of the Bar Kochba Revolt against Roman rule. C commits his share of the common confusions of Hebrew letters: final Kap for Dalet (116) and Chet for He (121), and also Pe with Rafe instead of final Pe without Dagesh (119). He chose to transliterate the subphonemic lenition of stops, but failed to indicate several of its occurrences (118). He refers to the epenthetic [a] inserted between a non-low vowel and a final laryngeal (''furtive Patach'') as a ''glide'' (120). His explanations of the realization of the vowel points known as Shwa and Metheg (121) may represent attempts to condense accounts in some grammar-book, but they bear little relation to reality. C alternates between ''gimmel'' (117, 119) and ''giimel'' (126) for the name of the third letter, which is in fact ''gimel'' (or ''giml'').
Arabic. To the practiced eye, Arabic writing is not ''quite different'' (116) from the Nabataean script from which it emerged in the two or three pre-Islamic centuries (Gruendler 1993). The transliteration of the Arabic consonantary omits the underdot from the second <z> (123). C adopts the shorthand claim/pedagogic device that each Arabic letter has ''four different shapes'' depending whether it is connected or not to the preceding and following letters (though the variation is merely a matter of interactions in the creation of ligatures), leading him to coin the phrase ''writing group'' for a sequence of letters that happen to all be traced without lifting the pen (123). The diacritic _shadda_ is printed in the text as a raised, slanted omega rather than with an actual Shadda. In the example of its use (where the correct form appears), the letters of the example words are bizarrely spaced apart (123). Diphthongs are wrongly claimed to be written by combining Waaw, Yaa', and 'Alif (123). C states both that endings (case inflections, specifically) ''are only pronounced in connected speech'' and that they are ''omitted in connected speech'' (125, in adjacent sentences); in fact they are omitted phrase- (or breath-group-)finally.
Akkadian. The East Semitic branch of Semitic is not ''sometimes called North Semitic'' (111); that term has been used by a minority of scholars who wish to avoid the notion of a stark divide between East and West Semitic languages. C has badly misinterpreted the table he reprints (76) from WWS: 57. It is not, as C says, the ''basic grid of cuneiform 'Syllabary A'.'' What it is, as identified in his source, is the ''inventory of basic signs used in the pronunciation column of Syllabary A.'' (A couple of the signs in that inventory aren't even included in Syllabary A.) Syllabary A was not, as C says, ''widely used as a basic standard'' (67). What it is, as explained by Cooper (WWS: 47), is ''a cuneiform syllabary of the first millennium [BCE, which] would have been the first list of signs and their values for a student scribe to master in Nineveh during the age of Ashurbanipal.'' One wonders where C got the notion that the 211 (actually 212; he overlooked no. 56A) signs of Syllabary A ''as applied to Babylonian ... decreased further to a set of about 110 signs'' (67). Cooper clearly states (47) that ''scribes writing Akkadian in most periods had a working repertoire of between two and three hundred signs,'' though scholars would be familiar with two to three times as many.
C has badly misunderstood the relation between the Sumerian and Akkadian writing systems. He believes (177, 208) that Sumerograms represent loanwords in the Akkadian language. All they are, though, is logograms, which happen to be transliterated by modern scholars with the Sumerian readings of the signs, just as logograms in Linear B or Luvian happen to be transliterated with Latin words. Sumerograms were read in Akkadian only. (His main example, LUGAL [177f.] is actually not even a sign in Sumerian -- it is a sequence of LÚ 'man' and GAL 'big' -- and there is no trace of a loanword *lugallu 'king' in Akkadian.) We don't, in fact, know the pronunciation of a few very common words in Hittite (cf. 208), because they happen to be written only with Sumerograms or even Akkadograms. Misled by the Neo-Assyrian typographic form of the sign DINGIR 'god' / AN 'sky' (despite the ''Note on Fonts''!), C does not realize that 'sky' is not a ''semantic extension'' of 'god' (177), but that both senses come from the original 'star' (and the sign's original shape is rather like an asterisk).
On p. 77, C offers an incorrect explanation for ''broken writing'' (a term he renders as ''broken graphics,'' perhaps as a calque on the French), saying ''sequences of -(C)VC-VC signs must be interpreted as containing geminated consonants, as in _li-in-ik-ta_ or _li-in-kat-ta_ for /linkta/ 'he vowed'.'' Not only is the sequence between slants not a possible word of Akkadian, it represents neither an exemplification of the rule as he states it, nor a transcription of either of the sequences of signs offered! If those sequences were to occur, they would be read _lin'ikta_ (with glottal stop; Reiner 1964: 169f.; Cooper, WWS: 48) and _linkatta_ respectively, though neither of these could relate to _naqû_ 'vow'. In Akkadian, a CV sign can be followed by an echo V sign. C claims (77) this was to disambiguate an ''indeterminate'' vowel of a CV sign -- by which he refers to the fact that a sign containing /i/ can also be read /e/ if the word it's in historically contained one of the three laryngeals -- but the signs for /i/ and /e/ are not so used. Rather, CV-V optionally indicates a long vowel, as he also says.
Ethiopic. Since the middle of the reign of King Ezana of Axum, ca. 350 CE (coincident with his conversion to Christianity), vowels have been notated in the script of the Ge`ez language (which is still used in Ethiopic churches) and of its modern relatives including Amharic in Ethiopia and Tigrinya (not ''Tigrinia'') in Eritrea, though not of Somali (154). C makes quite a hash of his description of it. The vowels are written, Indian-fashion, by appendages to the basic consonant letters, except that /a/ is assumed as the vowel following the consonant in the unaltered letter-shape. Vowellessness is not indicated using the same letters as <Ca> (i.e. the plain consonant letters), as C states (154), but by the same letters as are used for the short high (central) vowel (often misleadingly transliterated with Shwa, although it is not a reduced vowel; I will use <+> below for the nonce). C seems to be hung up on a notion that there is something special about a left-to-right sequence, even within a graphic unit, since he draws attention to the fact that some of the vowel-attachments are on the left of the letters and some are on the right. But he chooses a particularly unapt example to discuss, beginning with the syllable /l+/. The letter <la> is (sort of) an inverted Y, and the appendage for /+/ is a loop attached to the left leg _inside_ the tent of the legs. Yet C describes this as to the right! His eyes seem to betray him further, since he describes the circle-to-the-right that marks /ee/ as a ''curly hook,'' and claims that ''/a/ is marked on the left'' (154). But /a/ is not marked at all, and /aa/ is either an extension or addition of a right leg or a bending of a single vertical to the left. A few only of the marks for /+/ and a few of those for /oo/ are on the left of their letters (as can be seen in the chart on p. 155).
While the counts (173) of 26 monoconsonantal and ca. 80 biconsonantal hieroglyphs are correct, there are not 40, but 87 triconsonantal signs (Ritner, WWS: 78). Perhaps C interpreted Ritner's statement ''Exclusively logographic writing is relatively rare in Egyptian'' (74) to mean that ''only few [sic] Egyptian signs are logograms'' (170), but of the 700 or so signs used in Middle Egyptian, fewer than 300 are accounted for by the phonetics and the nearly 100 semantic determinatives. I can find no warrant (e.g. Gardiner 1957, Loprieno 1995) for C's assertion that ''more than 400 signs were rarely needed at any one time'' (170).
Greek alphabet. C claims that ''The relative shortage of V letters, characteristic of the alphabets of many other European languages as well, testifies to the descent of the Graeco-Latin alphabet [the what?] from its Semitic precursor where vowel indication was even more sparing'' (111). One wonders how this testimony was elicited, given that at least one vowel letter, Omega, was added to the Greek alphabet quite independent of the Phoenician forebear. It is not at all clear why C offers Hebrew letter names and words as if they underlie the Greek letter names (126); the Phoenician originals are either known or easily reconstructed (Noeldeke 1904). C is quite mistaken in stating (122, 127) that the Greek innovation of vowel letters was an extension of the _matres lectionis_ principle -- because the Greek alphabet was developed from the Phoenician consonantary, and Phoenician uses no _matres_ at all. (In the footnote to this discussion, C fails to mention the standard reference on the development and varieties of the Greek alphabet, Jeffery 1990. Familiarity with that work might have kept him from the bare statement ''The Greeks also invented the three letters <Phi>, <Chi>, <Psi> for the consonants /ph/, /kh/, and /ps/''; they were the outcome of a very complicated process.) While it is certainly true that ''For some time both horizontal directions of writing [Greek] were possible, the direction being reversed with every line,'' one must wonder what C has in mind when he says ''This way of writing frequently manifests itself in _scriptura continua_ or writing without word separation'' (128); it is not common at all around the world, and is perhaps most noteworthy in the South Arabian sphere, where inscriptions on very long walls were written in such a fashion presumably so that one could continue reading while walking back to the start of the text.
Cypriote syllabary. On p. 82, C gives a Greek word written with the Cypriote syllabary, _ptolin_, transliterated _po-to-li-ne_, but according to the chart on the facing page, the characters he shows are _pa-ta-li-ne_.
In discussing what to call the writing system in which, for instance, this review is composed, C mentions that the term ''Latin alphabet'' is ambiguous between ''the writing system of the Latin language'' and ''a set of 26 letters serving the writing systems of a great number of languages, ... also referred to as 'Roman' or 'roman''' (32). But whence this number 26? That's the number of letters in the English writing system, not the Latin or roman: Latin has 23, roman an indefinite number of letters, since different writing systems have made additions and subtractions over the ages.
English. In what phonemic (scil. phonetic; slants rather than brackets are simply wrong) scheme are ''she,'' ''he,'' and ''me'' transcribed as /SI: hi: mi/ respectively (63)? In what dialect of English is there a word [ju:fImiz@m] (98)? The charts of English consonants and vowels contain mistakes: the affricates are notated as sequences of stop+fricative rather than with the ligatured characters; and <v> is printed instead of the phonetic symbol for the high back lax vowel (185). In the discussion of spelling reform, unconscionable space and attention (238f. and in the appendix) are devoted to ''Kånådån,'' a development by a Canadian, which is not simply a proposal for reformed spelling but also (as C seems not to notice) festoons English with a variety of inflectional suffixes (so that ''All human beings are born free and equal'' becomes ''Al humanes ar bornized friis and ekwallik'' [appendix]).
Danish. If ''_Stød_ marks a phonological distinction, as in _mor_ 'mother' vs. _mord_ 'murder', homophone words only distinguished by the presence of _stød_ in the latter'' (106), how can they be ''homophone''?
Africa. The chart (102) of the Africa Alphabet (which was promulgated in 1927, not 1930) is missing its letter for the bilabial continuant (International Institute 1930).
Vietnamese. The additional letters for vowels -- consonant letters are disregarded -- are mistakenly said (106) to be plain letters with diacritics (that, of course, is what they look like, but they are by any analysis separate letters), and they are misprinted as such (properly printed Vietnamese can be seen in the appendix), leading to the incorrect statement that ''there are several graphemes consisting of a letter base and double accents'' (107), with more examples of typographic improvisation. The claim that ''The romanization of Vietnamese was a reform of the writing system, as Chinese characters, a completely different system, were abolished and a new system was specially designed for Vietnamese'' (234) reveals ignorance of history. The romanization was devised in the mid 17th century, but the Chinese-based script continued to be used for over two more centuries, and the romanization was not officially adopted until 1910 (Nguyen Dinh-Hoa, WWS: 691).
Chinese. The pinyin diacritic for the Third Tone is correctly given on p. 106 as hachek, but throughout the discussion of Chinese (51-58), it is wrongly printed as breve.
Brahmi. ''The first documents in Brahmi,'' the script devised for Prakrit during the reign of Ashoka ca. 250 BCE, were _not_ ''written from right to left'' (132). One coin with such a text has been found, where the punch engraver simply forgot to incise the inscription backward so that when the coin was stamped out, the legend would read properly. If an Aramaic-script background for the shapes of Brahmi letters is not assumed (132), then the _similarities_ cannot be explained (the differences are irrelevant to the question of descent). The letter <o> is incorrectly shown (134) as the same as <<u>>, missing its top stroke (and the forms given for <a> and <aa> do not agree with any in the paleographical charts of Dani 1986). The correct statement that /a/ is incorporated into the plain consonant letter makes rather incoherent the statement that it is ''superseded by the other vowel diacritics'' (134) -- it ought to refer to ''diacritics for the other vowels.''
Devanagari. Marathi should not be listed among the modern Indo-Aryan languages with scripts of their own (228). The suggestion that the use of two scripts, a Perso-Arabic one and an Indic one, played a greater part in the divergence of Urdu and Hindi (232) than the associated Muslim vs. Hindu cultural background is astonishing.
Tibetan and Thai. Because C consistently fails to distinguish between synchrony and diachrony, he unnecessarily confuses himself and the discussion of tone in Tibetan and Thai (143, 148). In both these languages, which involve even more extreme cases of historical spelling than English does, tonogenesis occurred after literacy was achieved; Tibetan tone is not systematically derivable from the orthography, while in Thai the inherited graphic material does serve in an elaborate way to indicate tone (Miller 1956, Brown 1985).
Southeast Asia. A page is reproduced (149) from Holle 1877, but no reference is given either to its original publication or to the recent reprint with translation from the Dutch original.
Korean. Hangul is not ''quite unique in that its graphic components are sensitive to subsegmental phonetic features'' (157); C's own earlier example of Bell's Visible Speech is another, and so are the two most widely used shorthand systems for English, Pitman's and Gregg's. The tone marks included by the inventors of the script were not ''unnecessary for writing Korean'' (161) in the 15th century, and some dialects of Korean, though not the Seoul standard, are still tonal in the 21st century. C exaggerates (165) the transparency of modern Korean orthography, as comparing any transcription of the language with a transliteration will show (Sohn 1999). Like the note on Urdu vs. Hindi above, the suggestion that ''In the two Koreas ... linguistic divergence is taking place, largely as a result of two different orthographies and orthography-based standards'' (233), rather than because there has been virtually no intercommunication between the nations for fifty years, or two generations, is astonishing. The authority quoted for the statement, Sohn 1997, in fact says exactly the opposite -- that the orthographies diverge because of independent policy-setting by the two governments.
Cherokee. The implication of the statement ''The Cherokee language has mostly open syllables, the only final margin C being /s/ for which a separate grapheme <s> is provided'' (70) is incorrect; Sequoyah, the inventor of the Cherokee syllabary, spelled his own name <s-si-quo-ya>. Nor is /s/ the only syllable-final consonant in Cherokee (Scancarelli, WWS: 591, 590).
Vai. C interprets _mgb_ as a triconsonantal cluster (73), rather than a prenasalized labiovelar single segment, presumably on the basis of its alphabetic transliteration.
Old Persian. It is difficult to see how C can say that ''Old Persian cuneiform comes close to a segmental script'' (169), especially in the absence of any description at all other than ''its basic modus operandi is phonographic.'' Perhaps he was misled by the (unsourced) chart found in both Coulmas 1989: 87 and 1996: 370, which wrongly shows both a consonantal and a syllabic value for every character.
Uyghur. It may be incorrect to state that the shift from horizontal to vertical writing when the Uyghur script was adapted from the Sogdian was ''abrupt'' (206). Syriac, which is read horizontally, was written vertically (to avoid smearing ink), and this practice may have continued with Sogdian scribes; Uyghur scribes, observing, might then have simply not rotated the written page back to horizontal, accommodating the Chinese practice of writing in columns.
From time to time, C betrays the alphabetocentric attitude he decries elsewhere. Thus on p. 213 he suggests that ''modern alphabetic texts consist of words divided by spaces, reflecting the intuitive insight that word separation facilitates reading.'' No such insight has been intuited by writers of the vast majority of the world's scripts! The assertion, on the basis of one study of Japanese, that ''for speech-sound awareness to occur, mastery of a _phonographic_ writing system seems to be the key factor, rather than of an alphabetic script'' (220) is belied by Prakash et al. (1993), who found that it does not occur in writers of an Indic-type script. It is a ''telling sign'' of Eurocentrism that spelling reform is assumed to be the responsibility of ''the state'' (236), an attitude utterly foreign to the American or even the Briton.
Here and there a reversed sans serif <e> appears in place of the intended phonetic character (epsilon on 63, 100); the ''ram's horn'' or ''baby gamma'' vowel character is found instead of a proper gamma for the voiced velar fricative in the table for Arabic transcription, and one of the Arabic glyphs is mistyped (124).
C's author-date references to the literature are generally to the date of the latest reprint rather than to the date of original publication, which can be both misleading and confusing -- thus on p. 21 ''Mallery 1972'' is cited, apparently, for ''the cave paintings of Lascaux or the pictographs of North American Indians.'' Only if we know that the Lascaux cavern was discovered in 1940 does this strike us as odd; and when we turn to the bibliography and find that ''Mallery 1972'' is his _Sign Language_ (''First published 1881''), and not his 1893 _Picture Writing_ (also reprinted in 1972), we are further puzzled.
On p. 132 is a list of labels for the Indic type of writing system (cf. the description of Ethiopic writing above), which includes _semisyllabary_ credited to ''Ullman 1989 following Diringer 1968.'' Inasmuch as the work by Ullman referred to, _Ancient Writing and Its Influence_, was published in an extensive series called ''Our Debt to Greece and Rome,'' and deals exclusively with the Greek and Roman scripts, one wonders why Indian (or even Ethiopian) writing might have been mentioned. In fact, (the book has no index but) the only mention of India appears to be on p. 163, in the context of the spread of the roman alphabet: ''The many alphabets of Central Asia (India, Tibet, etc.) are descended from the Semitic. Their future depends on political considerations.'' The word ''semi-syllabary'' does appear (almost) on p. 17: ''strictly speaking, Semitic script was not alphabetic; it was rather syllabic or semi-syllabic'' -- a foreshadowing of Gelb's notorious claim (vide infra). But what of the Diringer connection? David Diringer does use the term ''semi-syllabary'' -- just once, 1948: 360, in the text, but indexed four times, the others being references to a ''mixed alphabetic-syllabic system'' vel sim. -- and if he had recognized the Indic as another ''type'' of script might have used this label for it. Thus Ullman's usage does not ''follow'' Diringer's. Moreover, Ullman cannot have ''followed'' Diringer, because his book was published in 1932! (Nor does Diringer cite Ullman.) The 1968 ''third edition'' of Diringer 1948 (aside from added paragraphs describing decipherments accomplished in the 1950s) does not appear to differ from the original, except for the illustrations having been removed to a second volume (even the 1948 statistics were not updated). Ullman 1932 has frequently been reprinted unaltered (my 1963 edition does not note the original date of publication).
Coulmas 1984, referenced on p. 224 but not in the bibliography, would seem to be _Linguistic Minorities and Literacy_, said in Coulmas 1989 to be published by Berlin, Amsterdam, New York: Mouton. (Could this already be Mouton de Gruyter?)
''A second and higher level of success is achieved when the grammar ... specifies the observed data (in particular) in terms of significant generalizations that express underlying regularities in the language'' (Chomsky 1964: 924).
Strategically, treating writing systems by type rather than by historical relationship is a good approach. But tactically, to begin chapters with discussions of the notions of ''word,'' ''syllable,'' and ''segment'' seems misguided -- as is well known, these are three of the most difficult concepts in linguistics, and it seems an unnecessary complication to ask the student of writing systems -- who will have an intuitive understanding of them -- to become involved in age-old discussions. In each case C's conclusion essentially is ''we know them when we see them'' (''where words are recognized in writing this is not the result of a theoretically founded analysis of speech, but an interpretation,'' 40; ''a syllable is a unit of articulation, and although a universally accepted articulatory definition is not available, phoneticians of different schools are agreed that syllables possess psychological reality for speakers,'' 63; ''all attempts to prove that speech actually _works_ on the basis of principles determining the sequential organization of discrete segments have failed,'' 90); thus the discussions might better have been left to textbooks of phonology, morphology, and lexicology.
C's three principles (vide supra) may be taken as ''significant generalizations.'' For each of the principles, C poses two questions, so we can investigate how they fare in the book.
Principle of the autonomy of the graphic system
''What are the basic operational units of the system, and what are well-formed sequences of these units?'' (34). The organization of the book is according to the different sorts of operational units. Traditionally, three such units have been recognized by writers on writing: the logogram, the syllabogram, and the letter. A fuller typology was introduced by this writer in 1988 (Daniels 1990, 1992), and, as seen from the Synopsis of chapters 3-7 above, it has been adopted by Coulmas; but C's only reference to my work is to pooh-pooh (113) one of my suggested terms for one of the types. (Of the two articles that he suggests discuss the terminology, Bright 1999 and Watt 1998, the former, as its title indicates, is about the concept, not the word [''I recognized the aptness of Daniels's term''], and what the latter, presented as a review article on WWS, criticizes is its own misrepresentation of my typology.) He does not recognize that the initial impetus for the new typology was to clarify why Gelb's Principle of Uniform Development is invalid, even though he devotes several pages (197-99) to its inadequacy (cf. further detail in Daniels 2000a). (Gelb believed that the three types of writing system could come into being only in the order conventionally listed, and without skipping any steps; thus the West Semitic consonantary _had_ to be a syllabary, so that the Greek alphabet could develop out of it.)
Thus I can only applaud C's admission of both the consonantary (my ''abjad'') and the ''semi-syllabary'' (my ''abugida'') to the basics of script typology; but I'm disappointed that he does not recognize the usefulness of a term for the latter that does not include morphemes relating either to ''alphabet'' or ''syllabary,'' so as to emphasize its independence of the other two types. (Neither of my terms is an invention; they are names in Arabic and Ge`ez respectively for exactly the phenomena I imported them into English to name.) Unlike C, Fischer (2001, a work considerably less respectful of factual accuracy than C's; Daniels 2002a) accepts both the typology and the nomenclature, albeit without acknowledgment.
As for well-formed sequences of units, that would seem to be a matter for the grammars of individual written languages, and it was in effect the assignment to contributors to WWS, but it is not particularly the brief of an introductory textbook. In another way, though, to insist on the sequence -- the linearity -- of writing is to disregard much recent work emphasizing the non-linear nature of writing as opposed to speaking: the availability of previous sentences, paragraphs, pages for reexamination; the possibility of taking in much more than a single word or phrase at a time. This is a favorite topos of Roy Harris, who, however, is quoted only sparingly and only on other issues.
Principle of interpretation
''On what level of linguistic structure are the units of a writing system interpreted and how do they reflect structural feature(s) of the language(s) they provide with a written form?'' (34). On the one hand, these questions do not differ from the questions posed by the previous Principle; on the other, this seems to be a recapitulation of the old (''post-Bloomfieldian'') problem of ''mixing levels'' -- morphemes were not to be acknowledged in doing phonology, meaning in doing grammar, and so on (the approach found its apotheosis in Harris 1951 and the annunciation of its demise in Halle 1959).
This presents the opportunity, however, to discuss the notion of _grapheme_. At the spot where a definition might be expected (the word is in boldface, in the section called ''A note on terminology''), there appears only ''The term *grapheme* refers to the abstract type of a letter and its position in a given writing system'' (36), which I do not find helpful. Here and there it is used simply as a fancy synonym for ''letter'' (Daniels 1991: 528) -- only, interestingly, in connection with pure syllabaries (index s.v.) -- but on p. 103 we learn that ''all upper and lower case letters, all diacritically modified letters, and all letter combinations that function as graphotactic units'' are to count as separate graphemes.
Herein lies my problem with the term. If the suffixes -emic and -etic, or the anthropological technical terms ''emic'' and ''etic,'' are to be useful at all, they ought to retain some commonality of sense across the disciplines or even within linguistics. But to what phenomena in language or culture do capitalization or the use of diacritics or digraphs correspond? Aside from the few cases of conditioned allography like the forms of syllable- or word-final <s> in German or Greek, or the final or combining forms in Hebrew or Arabic, what would a ''graphetic'' level of analysis be? Are the reduced forms of Indic characters (used for the initial member[s] of a consonant cluster) to be considered allographs of the full form? But they represent /C/ rather than /Ca/, so they disagree in both form and function with the full forms. (And surely variation in either handwriting or typeface is a non-linguistic phenomenon comparable to vocal timbre.)
If Japanese kana can be called graphemes without fuss (80), are individual kanji also graphemes? But is there indeed no fuss? Is there not some sort of functional relationship between the katakana and hiragana <ku>s? Is there some different sort of relationship between katakana and hiragana <ka>s and <ki>s, where there is even a degree of graphic similarity? (These three examples happen to be exceptional cases where both the katakana and hiragana of each syllable derive from the same character [Müller-Yokota 1994: 387, 389f.; less fully in Seeley 1991: 194-96, 200].) What of Chinese? Is each character to be considered a grapheme? If so, what are the (traditionally) two components of almost every character, the radical (or semantic) and the phonetic? If they are the graphemes, what are the characters to be called? (In fact, C does not invoke ''grapheme'' in his account of Chinese characters, but he skips right over the component level, saying ''Each character, a meaningful unit, is composed of a fixed number of meaningless strokes'' . It is certainly true that ''while characters map onto morphemes and words, there is no systematic mapping relation between strokes and segments''; but it is also true that such a relation does exist between components and sounds, and between components and meanings.)
It is questions like these that led me to suggest (1991) that the term ''grapheme'' should not be used in the study of writing systems.
Principle of historicity
''How are writing systems adjusted to the languages they represent, and how does writing a language affect its development?'' (35). The second question is a perpetual one, and necessarily unanswerable. It is a popular speculation that written languages change more slowly than unwritten ones, but how could one tell? Is it not the same popular speculators who claim that the (unwritten) dialect of the US Ozarks ''is'' Elizabethan English? The first question appears to inquire into orthographic reform, a topic of contemporary interest to Dutch and German scholars (e.g. Neijt 2001, Coulmas 1998) but another one destined to generate more heat than light.
Given the preface to those questions, however, it seems they are simply not the right questions for the topic. C correctly observes that: ''Because established writing systems have a strong tendency to resist change, the spoken and written forms of a language usually progress in an asynchronous manner, which, in the long run, adds to the complexity of the mapping relations between both. Further, most original writing systems have been transferred to other languages'' (34f.). Here in a nutshell is the kernel of the study of writing systems. It suggests that the basic questions are, How do writing systems synchronically represent their languages, despite the diachronic disparities between the two, and what happens when readers/writers can no longer tolerate the discrepancies?
The prime lesson to be learned from C's observation is that synchrony and diachrony must be sundered as strictly as ever Saussure suggested. We have already mentioned how C's not doing so led to confusion in his descriptions of Thai and Tibetan writing, but a more familiar example appears in his accounts of Greek. On p. 127 the context (irrelevant here) is the (supposed) greater need of Indo-European languages to notate vowels than Semitic languages had; C gives six Greek words with, not transliterations, but phonetic transcriptions -- such as <ánoia> ['ania] 'feebleminded' and <hugíeia> [i'jia] 'health'. The reader could be forgiven for being distracted from the point at hand by wondering why Greeks would have written those pronunciations with those spellings. Nowhere does C note that he offers Modern Greek pronunciations of Classical words! The ensuing discussions of the innovation of vowel letters (127, 128) are also unsatisfactory. We have already noted that C incorrectly attributes them to prior _matres lectionis_; he also says that Epsilon and Eta, Omicron and Omega were devised to notate vowel length, but C. J. Ruijgh (1997 cols. 569ff. § 28) shows that the pairs denote vowel height rather than vowel length (and differently in different dialects). Thus C's ''It is doubtful whether Greek spelling conventions ever approximated the ideal of a one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. In classical Greek the one-symbol-one-sound principle is violated for the Vs <a>, <i> and <u>, which encode both short and long vowels, and for the digraphs <ei> and <ou> which are no longer interpreted as diphthongs'' suffers from mixing of eras and an imprecise notion of when Greek was ''classical'' (perhaps 401 BCE when the standard alphabet was adopted in Athens, vs. the several earlier centuries when the inventory of letters was becoming established).
Another, more trivial example of the overlooking of historical information is the discussion of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Contrasting it with the iconic symbols of Bell's Visible Speech (28-32), C gives the impression that it was created in 1888 on the basis of the roman alphabet, rather than recognizing it as a refinement of earlier roman-based phonetic transcription systems by such as William Jones, John Pickering, and Richard Lepsius (MacMahon, WWS: 831-37).
It has become fashionable in recent years to decry ''alphabetolatry,'' the notion, which led to Gelb's Principle of Unidirectional Development as well as to certain pernicious notions concerning the history of Western Civilization (cf. WWS: 26-28), that the alphabet is the ''best'' kind of writing system and a 1:1 relation between symbol and segment is the ''best'' kind of alphabet. C rightly deprecates this notion (197ff.), but is not above succumbing to it himself, e.g. the reference (102) to a phoneme-grapheme ''ratio closer to the ideal of 1 : 1.''
From time to time, C offers a sententious but uninterpretable evaluation: ''Arabic writing thus [scil. because it is morphophonemic] illustrates even more clearly than other phonographic systems that writing is autonomous, but at the same time allows for, and calls for, phonetic interpretation'' (125). ''The use of _matres lectionis_ in archaic Semitic documents ... is clear evidence that the Semitic scribes had a notion of a vowel as a unit of language'' (131). ''A matrix like this [scil. Brahmi's] where the common graphic element of all listed items can be interpreted as a consonant is clear evidence that the notion of a consonant as such was available to whoever designed the system'' (135). Finally, C observes correctly that ''It is difficult ... clearly to distinguish the spread of a writing system from its evolution, derivation and transmutation into a new system'' (207) -- but why should one? History is complicated. It only should not be confused with description.
''A third and still higher level of success is achieved when the ... theory in question suggests an explanation for the linguistic intuition of the native speaker'' (Chomsky 1964: 924).
Coulmas covers a great many topics in a few pages, but what one misses is an overarching conceptualization that can unify and even illuminate a great many seemingly independent phenomena of writing. For instance, in dealing with the origins of writing, C notes that ''(1) it is rooted in pictures, and (2) it happened several times. ... A major conceptual transformation is necessary to turn a picture ... into the sign of the name of an object .... Present evidence suggests that this remarkable reinterpretation was effected independently at least four times in different parts of the world, Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Mesoamerica'' (196). C does not ask _why_ it happened in these particular places, nor why it did not happen in other places. (Note that his reason for denying the usual account that Egyptian writing was inspired by Sumerian writing is the very superficial one that there is no graphic resemblance between cuneiform signs, or even pre-cuneiform signs, and hieroglyphs -- even though the two writing systems are organized almost identically, with logograms, phonograms, and semantic determinatives.)
As it happens, an answer for both those questions has been available for a decade, in Daniels 1992, but C chooses to ignore it, rather than either embrace it or attempt to refute it (if it be suggested that the article is published rather obscurely, C cites four other articles from the same book). The invention of writing occurred in Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica because the ''remarkable reinterpretation'' was done by people speaking monosyllabically organized languages -- languages in which most morphemes (most words, even) comprise a single syllable. C even knows (89, 220) the work of the Portuguese psychologist José Morais that shows the syllable to be the basic unit of speech of the preliterate person. With ''monosyllabic'' languages, the drawing of a picture to represent a thing is tantamount to recording the word that names the thing. The most salient unit of speech, the syllable, coincides with the most salient unit of language, the word -- the free morpheme -- and it becomes all but inevitable that such a drawing could be reused (as a rebus) for another word of the same or similar pronunciation -- a word that could not so easily be pictured.
The standard example, of Sumerian _ti_ 'arrow' being reused for _ti_ 'life' is hackneyed, so I shall borrow a different one (going all the way back to the earliest known Chinese inscriptions) from Karlgren (1926: 34): ''We have a word that in Mandarin is pronounced _k'iu_ and means 'fur-coat', another, also pronounced _k'iu_, meaning 'to seek'. The two must have been homonymous already in very early times, for when the scribe wanted to write the abstract _k'iu_ 'to seek', which was difficult to represent by means of a picture, he wrote <--> instead (originally a picture of a fur).''
The connection between monosyllabic languages and the origins of writing has been approached by other investigators (e.g. C, p. 47), but it was not previously made explicit. It became apparent only with the new typology of writing systems -- specifically, the dividing of the old category of ''syllabary,'' which encompassed both true syllabaries like Linear B, Japanese, and Cherokee and abugidas like Brahmi and Ethiopic. For it soon became apparent that all of the dozen or so modern inventions of writing by persons unschooled in any form of writing (the first known one being Sequoyah's Cherokee) are syllabaries. The conventional pairing of Cherokee and Cree (as on C's pp. 69ff.), simply because they are both used for languages of Native North America, tends to obscure the two great differences between them: Cree is an abugida (the basic symbol represents /Cê/, and its three 90° rotations represent the other three vowels), and its deviser, James Evans, was a missionary who had learned phonetics from Pitman's shorthand.
Then, with the decipherment of Mayan, a third indubitably independent ancient invention of writing, the writing structurally the same as Sumerian and Chinese, the language also monosyllabic, the conclusion was clear: writing is invented in cultures with some degree of urbanization (for it initially fills the economic need for keeping records of transactions among sizable or specialized groups of people) whose languages are monosyllabic (note that writing was not invented by any Semitic- or Indo-European-speaking peoples, or by the indubitably urbanized Quechua-speaking Incas).
It follows, moreover, from this theory that Egyptian hieroglyphs were not an invention from scratch, for Egyptian writing is not syllabic, and Egyptian is not monosyllabic. Instead, Egyptian is the first of three examples of script innovation by mislearning (the others being the West Semitic consonantary and the Greek alphabet; Daniels in press, cf. 2002: 105). Script transfer is indeed a topic that comes up again and again in the book (recall the quotation under ''Principle of historicity'' ), but C again misses the opportunity to embrace or engage existing proposals that when script transfer involves scholars who already have a tradition of grammatical study of their language, the outcome is an improvement, subtle or major; but when script transfers involve careful learning of a script and application of its principles unchanged to a new language, the outcome is often a script that fits the new language less efficiently than in the model (Daniels 2000; if it be suggested that the article is published rather obscurely, C has an article in the same journal number; cf. also Daniels 2001 -- this chapter cannot be said to be published obscurely, but C has a chapter in the same book and cites another chapter from it).
I had hoped to end this review on a positive note. I have nothing but praise for the statement ''Since writing systems are artifacts, they are subject to deliberate manipulation'' (cf. Daniels 2001: 66). That is the most important difference between writing and language (and the main reason ''grapheme'' is not a coherent concept). I also agree with what immediately follows: ''Tolerance for complexity and the desire to have a writing system that looks like, or, on the contrary, differs from, another are variable factors not easily captured by general laws'' (cf. Daniels 1992: 100). But as I hope to have shown in a variety of publications over the last decade and more, the succeeding sentence is overly pessimistic: ''The history of writing, therefore, cannot rely much on universal tendencies, but has to investigate the spread and transmutation of every script in its own right'' (208).
Is it, perhaps, relevant to the very strange epigraph? ''Writing ... a mooring post for those who travel on mud'' (vii).
Albright, W. F. 1966. The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment (Harvard Theological Studies 12). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bright, William. 1999. ''A Matter of Typology: Alphasyllabaries and Abugidas.'' Written Language and Literacy 2: 45-55.
Brown, J. Marvin. 1985. From Ancient Thai to Modern Dialects and Other Writings on Historical Thai Linguistics. Bangkok: White Lotus.
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. ''The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory,'' in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-31, 1962, ed. Horace G. Lunt, 914-78. The Hague: Mouton.
Cohen, Rachel. 2003. ''The Very Bad Review,'' The New Yorker, October 6, 52//67.
Coulmas, Florian. 1989. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coulmas, Florian. 1996. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coulmas, Florian. 1998. ''Commentary: Spelling with a Capital 'S'.'' Written Language and Literacy 1: 249-52.
Dani, Ahmed Hassan. 1963. Indian Palaeography. Oxford: Clarendon. 2d ed., Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1986.
Daniels, Peter T. 1990. ''Fundamentals of Grammatology.'' Journal of the American Oriental Society 110: 727-31.
Daniels, Peter T. 1991. ''Is a Structural Graphemics Possible?'' 18th LACUS Forum (Ann Arbor): 528-37.
Daniels, Peter T. 1992. ''The Syllabic Origin of Writing and the Segmental Origin of the Alphabet, in The Linguistics of Literacy, ed. Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima, and Michael Noonan (Typological Studies in Language 21), 83-110. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Daniels, Peter T. 2000. ''On Writing Syllables: Three Episodes of Script Transfer.'' Studies in the Linguistic Sciences (Urbana) 30: 73-86.
Daniels, Peter T. 2000a. ''Syllables, Consonants, and Vowels in West Semitic Writing.'' Lingua Posnaniensis 42: 43-55.
Daniels, Peter T. 2001. ''Writing Systems,'' in The Handbook of Linguistics, ed. Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 43-80.
Daniels, Peter T. 2002. ''The Study of Writing in the Twentieth Century: Semitic Studies Interacting with Non-Semitic.'' Israel Oriental Studies 20: 85-117.
Daniels, Peter T. 2002a. Review of Fischer 2001. Times Higher Education Supplement (March ??).
Daniels, Peter T. in press. ''Three Models of Script Transfer.'' Word.
Daniels, Peter T., & William Bright, eds. 1996. The World's Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
DeFrancis, John. 1989. Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Diringer, David. 1948. The Alphabet: A Key to the History of Mankind. New York: Philosophical Library.
Fischer, Steven Roger. 2001. A History of Writing (Globalities). London: Reaktion Books.
Gardiner, Alan. 1957. Egyptian Grammar. 3d ed. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Gelb, I. J. 1952. A Study of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2d ed., 1963.
Gruendler, Beatrice. 1993. The Development of the Arabic Scripts: From the Nabatean Era to the First Islamic Century According to Dated Texts (Harvard Semitic Studies 43). Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Halle, Morris. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.
Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Holle, Karel Frederik. 1877. Tabel van Oud- en Nieuw-Indische Alphabetten. Batavia: Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen. Repr. with translation by Carol Molony and Henk Pechler of the Bijdrage tot de Palaeographievan Nederlandsch-Indie (1882) in Written Language and Literacy 2 (1999): 167-246.
International Institute of African Languages and Cultures. 1930. Practical Orthography of African Languages (IIALC Memorandum 1), rev. ed. London: Oxford University Press. 1st ed., London: IIALC, 1927.
Jeffery, Lillian. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 2d ed. by A. W. Johnston. Oxford: Clarendon.
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1926. Philology and Ancient China. Oslo: Aschehoug; Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Repr. Philadelphia: Porcupine, 1980.
Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mallery, Garrick. 1893. Picture Writing of the American Indians. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Repr. New York: Dover, 1972.
Mallery, Garrick. 1972. Sign Language among North American Indians compared with that among Other Peoples and Deaf-Mutes (Approaches to Semiotics 14). The Hague: Mouton. (First published 1881). [As listed by Coulmas 2003]
Miller, Roy Andrew. 1956. The Tibetan System of Writing. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies.
Müller-Yokota, Wolfram. 1994. Weiterentwicklungen der chinesischen Schrift: Japan - Korea - Vietnam,'' in Schrift und Schriftlichkeit, ed. Hartmut Günther & Otto Ludwig, 382-404. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Neijt, Anneke. 2001. ''Reforms of Dutch Orthography,'' in Hieroglyphen, Alphabete, Schriftreformen: Studien zu Multiliteralismus, Schriftwechsel und Orthographieneuregelungen (Lingua Aegyptia - Studia monographica 3), ed. Dörte Borchers, Frank Kammerzell, & Stefan Weninger, 209-22. Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie.
Noeldeke, Theodor. 1904. ''Die semitischen Buchstabennamen,'' In his Beitraege zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 124-36. Strassburg: Truebner.
Prakash, P., D. Rekha, R. Nigam, and P. Karanth. 1993. ''Phonological Awareness, Orthography, and Literacy,'' in Literacy and Language Analysis, ed. Robert J. Scholes, 55-70. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Reiner, Erica. 1964. ''The Phonological Interpretation of a Subsystem in the Akkadian Syllabary,'' in From the Workshop of the Assyrian Dictionary: Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim June 7, 1964, 167-80. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Ruijgh, C. J. 1997. ''La date de la création de l'alphabet grec et celle de l'épopée homérique.'' Bibliotheca Orientalis 54:533-603.
Sass, Benjamin. 1988. The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Seeley, Christopher. 1991. A History of Writing in Japan. Leiden: Brill. Repr. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2000.
Sohn, Ho-minh. 1997. ''Orthographic Divergence in South and North Korea: Toward a Unified Spelling System,'' in The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Structure, ed. Young-Key Kim-Renaud, 193-217. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Sohn, Ho-Minh. 1999. The Korean Language (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ullman, Berthold. 1932. Ancient Writing and Its Influence (Our Debt to Greece and Rome). New York: Longmans Green. Repr. New York: Cooper Square, 1963; Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969 [Knight, WWS: 330]; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1980 [Coulmas 1996: 601]; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989 [Coulmas 2003: 257].
Watt, W. C. 1998. ''The Old-fashioned Way,'' Semiotica 122: 99-138.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Peter T. Daniels, co-editor and principal author of *The World's Writing
Systems*, holds degrees in linguistics from Cornell University and the
University of Chicago. He is also Production Editor at Gorgias Press.