Remix.run Logo
ahazred8ta 4 days ago

The inscribed Umm el-Marra cylinders of northwestern Syria, circa 2400 BC, 500 years before alphabetic writing was derived in Sinai from Egyptian hieratic phonetic writing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

casenmgreen 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So we are in fact talking a non proto-Sinaitic script?

One that presumably did not succeed, and was superseded by proto-Sinaitic?

Or perhaps influenced / led to proto-Sinaitic?

adrian_b 21 hours ago | parent [-]

The article does not provide the slightest clue about why the researchers believe that this is an alphabetic script, taking into account that they say that it does not resemble other known scripts.

Usually it is assumed that a script is alphabetic instead of being syllabic when the total number of distinct symbols is small, but this is not foolproof, because there are languages with a relatively small number of distinct syllables, like Japanese, so there is an overlap in the number of distinct symbols between alphabetic scripts for languages with a great number of phonemes and syllabic scripts for languages with a small number of syllables.

However, in this case it appears that the total amount of recovered text is quite small, so it would contain a small number of distinct symbols even if the original writing system had a greater number of distinct symbols, which did not happen to be recorded here.

Because the small total number of distinct symbols may be an accident in this case, it would not be enough to prove that this is an alphabetic script.

One should not forget that already since its origin, millennia before this, the Egyptian writing system had contained as a subset a set of symbols equivalent with the later Semitic alphabets, i.e. where each symbol was used for a single consonant.

However the Egyptian writing system has never used its alphabetic subset alone (except sometimes for transcribing foreign names), but together with many other symbols used for writing multiple consonants.

The invention of the Semitic alphabets did not add anything new, but it greatly simplified the Egyptian writing system by deleting all symbols used for multiple consonants and using exclusively the small number of symbols denoting a single consonant.

Because the alphabetic script has been invented by trying to apply the principles of the Egyptian writing to a non-Egyptian language, it could have been inspired by an already existing practice of using the alphabetic subset of the Egyptian writing for the transcription of foreign words.

All the many writing systems that have been invented independently of the Egyptian writing have used symbols denoting either syllables or words. Only the Egyptian writing had the peculiar characteristic of denoting only the consonants of the speech, independently of the vowels, which is what has enabled the development of alphabetic writing systems from it.

airstrike 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wait, you're the same person that made the super insightful comment about the origins of life and RNA yesterday...

I'm honestly amazed at how you know so much about everything

fuzzfactor 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>the same person that made the super insightful comment about the origins of life and RNA yesterday...

Astute observation.

That's some worthwhile reading.

I would say that some people can make use of natural intelligence better than others can do with the artificial stuff.

kagevf 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> there are languages with a relatively small number of distinct syllables, like Japanese

Japanese has around 50 syllabic symbols, depending on how you count - include both sets of kana? include more archaic kana? etc

What would be a more typical number of syllabic symbols? I tried googling it to get an idea, but couldn't find much useful information. I guess Arabic has 28?

airstrike 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I think they meant syllables specifically, not syllabic symbols. Meanings syllabic symbols might get confused for an alphabet if the language has a sufficiently small set of syllables. See https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/36909

kagevf 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, was aware of that possibility; I guess I should have made a point about the disctinction between symbols vs "possible sound combinations" (my words). And even "possible sound combinations" can be further limited to "actually used sound combinations" as mentioned in the answer on that SO link.

So, in terms of "possible sound combinations" I think Japanese would likely be on the lower side given that the number of sounds are also pretty low. Alright, thank you for that reply; the point in the original post I replied to makes more sense to me now.

thaumasiotes 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> All the many writing systems that have been invented independently of the Egyptian writing have used symbols denoting either syllables or words. Only the Egyptian writing had the peculiar characteristic of denoting only the consonants of the speech, independently of the vowels, which is what has enabled the development of alphabetic writing systems from it.

Hangul was developed independently of Egyptian script and is purely alphabetic.

13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]