DOCSLIB.ORG

Cherokee Writing Reexamined: a Linguistic Analysis of the Cherokee Syllabary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cherokee Writing Reexamined: a Linguistic Analysis of the Cherokee Syllabary CHEROKEE WRITING REEXAMINED: A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE CHEROKEE SYLLABARY Melissa B. Klein A thesis submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Linguistics. Chapel Hill 2019 Approved by: David Mora-Marín Benjamin Frey Misha Becker © 2019 Melissa B. Klein ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Melissa B. Klein: Cherokee Writing Reexamined: A Linguistic Analysis of the Cherokee Syllabary. (Under the direction of David Mora-Marín) This thesis applies a novel methodology to analyze the graphic forms of the Cherokee Syllabary to address the questions: Is the Cherokee Syllabary a pure syllabic writing system, and if so, did it start out that way? Calligraphic terminology was borrowed to identify and analyze the anatomical pieces of Cherokee graphemes. Previous scholars have explored the Cherokee Syllabary in-depth, but did not apply a systematic formal and structural analysis to the sign inventory. Through my analysis, I observe that 1) MCS (Modern Cherokee Syllabary) is a syllabic system, 2) OCS (Original Cherokee Syllabary) may have features of a mixed system with abugida-like diacritics, 3) OCS and MCS graphemes are formally related, 4) approximately 50% of the possible diacritics in OCS were maintained into MCS graphemes, and 5) many CS graphemes were borrowed and repurposed from the Roman alphabet, resulting in graphemic divergence through the alterations of rotation, deletion, and substitution. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my thesis advisor Dr. David Mora-Marín of the Linguistics Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Professor Mora-Marín was always willing to listen and offer advice whenever I had a question with my research or writing. He was an amazing source of new ideas, while always allowing me to pursue my goals and perspectives. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Misha Becker of the Linguistics Department and Dr. Benjamin Frey of the American Studies Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. They were readily available to assist me and I am grateful for their valuable input and comments on this thesis. Thank you to Dr. Martha Marci, for her pertinent and helpful feedback on my thesis. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge my undergraduate mentors Dr. Margaret Bender of the Department of Anthropology and Dr. Billy Hamilton of the Department of German and Russian at Wake Forest University for sparking my love of language and supporting me as I began my adventure into the world of language research. I would not be where I am today without their patience, inspiration, and knowledge. A number of my colleagues also deserve recognition as they listened to my woes and successes, and always gave feedback whenever I needed it; thank you to Mykel Brinkerhoff, Simon Wolf, Meg Fletcher, Kate Rustad, Alexander Austin-Trongo, and Duncan Britton. iv Finally, to my family, thank you for supporting and encouraging me through my many years of study; I would not have achieved this accomplishment without their continued confidence. A special shout out to my husband, Thane Campbell, and our dogs Rose, Maggie, and Rhubarb, for helping me stay happy and healthy throughout my thesis research and writing. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1. Contextualizing: Cherokee History, Culture, and Language. .................................. 3 1.1. Society & Culture .............................................................................................................. 3 1.1.1. Before Contact with Colonizers ................................................................................ 3 1.1.2. After Contact with Colonizers .................................................................................. 4 1.1.3. Cherokee in the 20th & 21st Centuries ....................................................................... 7 1.1.4. Cherokee Literacy ..................................................................................................... 9 1.2. The Cherokee Language .................................................................................................. 11 1.2.1. Phonemic Inventory ................................................................................................ 12 1.2.2. Syllable Structure .................................................................................................... 15 1.2.3. Morphology & Syntax ............................................................................................ 18 1.2.4. Orthography ............................................................................................................ 19 1.3. Cherokee Writing System ................................................................................................ 20 1.3.1. Sequoyah’s Life ...................................................................................................... 20 1.3.2. The Original Cherokee Writing System ................................................................. 23 1.3.3. The Modern Cherokee Writing System .................................................................. 25 1.3.4. Cherokee Syllabary Sign inventory ........................................................................ 27 1.3.4.1. CV Graphemes ............................................................................................... 27 vi 1.3.4.2. V Graphemes ................................................................................................. 27 1.3.4.3. C Graphemes .................................................................................................. 28 1.3.5. Sign Ordering .......................................................................................................... 28 1.3.5.1. As Arranged by the Inventor.......................................................................... 28 1.3.5.2. The Systematic Arrangement ......................................................................... 29 1.3.6. Inadequacies of the Cherokee Syllabary ................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 2. Writing Systems Review & Processes ................................................................... 31 2.1. Review of Relevant Writing Systems .............................................................................. 32 2.1.1. Logographic ............................................................................................................ 33 2.1.2. Alphabetic ............................................................................................................... 34 2.1.3. Syllabic ................................................................................................................... 36 2.1.3.1. Moraic ............................................................................................................ 37 2.1.4. Morphographic ........................................................................................................ 38 2.1.5. Abjad ....................................................................................................................... 41 2.1.6. Abugida ................................................................................................................... 42 2.1.7. Featural ................................................................................................................... 45 2.1.8. Mixed Writing System ............................................................................................ 46 2.2. Developmental Processes of Writing Systems ................................................................ 47 2.2.1. Rebus Writing ......................................................................................................... 47 2.2.2. Syllabic Writing System Development ................................................................... 49 2.2.3. Convergence & Divergence .................................................................................... 50 2.2.4. Typology of Graphic Changes ................................................................................ 51 2.3. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 51 vii CHAPTER 3. Analysis of Cherokee Graphic Forms.................................................................... 53 3.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 53 3.2. Modern Cherokee Writing ............................................................................................... 54 3.2.1. Calligraphic Terminology ....................................................................................... 54 3.2.2. Analysis of MCS Graphic Forms ............................................................................ 57 3.3. Original Cherokee Writing .............................................................................................. 59 3.3.1. Analysis of OCS Graphic Forms ...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cherokee Ethnogenesis in Southwestern North Carolina
    The following chapter is from: The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia Charles R. Ewen – Co-Editor Thomas R. Whyte – Co-Editor R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. – Co-Editor North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 30 2011 Available online at: http://www.rla.unc.edu/NCAC/Publications/NCAC30/index.html CHEROKEE ETHNOGENESIS IN SOUTHWESTERN NORTH CAROLINA Christopher B. Rodning Dozens of Cherokee towns dotted the river valleys of the Appalachian Summit province in southwestern North Carolina during the eighteenth century (Figure 16-1; Dickens 1967, 1978, 1979; Perdue 1998; Persico 1979; Shumate et al. 2005; Smith 1979). What developments led to the formation of these Cherokee towns? Of course, native people had been living in the Appalachian Summit for thousands of years, through the Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippi periods (Dickens 1976; Keel 1976; Purrington 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). What are the archaeological correlates of Cherokee culture, when are they visible archaeologically, and what can archaeology contribute to knowledge of the origins and development of Cherokee culture in southwestern North Carolina? Archaeologists, myself included, have often focused on the characteristics of pottery and other artifacts as clues about the development of Cherokee culture, which is a valid approach, but not the only approach (Dickens 1978, 1979, 1986; Hally 1986; Riggs and Rodning 2002; Rodning 2008; Schroedl 1986a; Wilson and Rodning 2002). In this paper (see also Rodning 2009a, 2010a, 2011b), I focus on the development of Cherokee towns and townhouses. Given the significance of towns and town affiliations to Cherokee identity and landscape during the 1700s (Boulware 2011; Chambers 2010; Smith 1979), I suggest that tracing the development of towns and townhouses helps us understand Cherokee ethnogenesis, more generally.
    [Show full text]
  • Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-2017 Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves Beau Duke Carroll University of Tennessee, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Recommended Citation Carroll, Beau Duke, "Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2017. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4985 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Beau Duke Carroll entitled "Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology. Jan Simek, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: David G. Anderson, Julie L. Reed Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves A Thesis Presented for the Master of Arts Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Beau Duke Carroll December 2017 Copyright © 2017 by Beau Duke Carroll All rights reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not be possible without the following people who contributed their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Similarities and Dissimilarities of English and Arabic Alphabets in Phonetic and Phonology: a Comparative Study
    Similarities and dissimilarities of English and Arabic 94 Similarities and dissimilarities of English and Arabic Alphabets in Phonetic and Phonology: A Comparative Study MD YEAQUB Research Scholar Aligarh Muslim University, India Email: [email protected] Abstract: This paper will focus on a comparative study about similarities and dissimilarities of the pronunciation between the syllables of English and Arabic with the help of phonetic and phonological tools i.e. manner of articulation, point of articulation and their distribution at different positions in English and Arabic Alphabets. A phonetic and phonological analysis of the alphabets of English and Arabic can be useful in overcoming the hindrances for those want to improve the pronunciation of both English and Arabic languages. We all know that Arabic is a Semitic language from the Afro-Asiatic Language Family. On the other hand, English is a West Germanic language from the Indo- European Language Family. Both languages show many linguistic differences at all levels of linguistic analysis, i.e. phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc. For this we will take into consideration, the segmental features only, i.e. the consonant and vowel system of the two languages. So, this is better and larger to bring about pedagogical changes that can go a long way in improving pronunciation and ensuring the occurrence of desirable learners’ outcomes. Keywords: Arabic Alphabets, English Alphabets, Pronunciations, Phonetics, Phonology, manner of articulation, point of articulation. Introduction: We all know that sounds are generally divided into two i.e. consonants and vowels. A consonant is a speech sound, which obstruct the flow of air through the vocal tract.
    [Show full text]
  • Runes Free Download
    RUNES FREE DOWNLOAD Martin Findell | 112 pages | 24 Mar 2014 | BRITISH MUSEUM PRESS | 9780714180298 | English | London, United Kingdom Runic alphabet Main article: Younger Futhark. He Runes rune magic to Freya and learned Seidr from her. The runes were in use among the Germanic peoples from the 1st or 2nd century AD. BCE Proto-Sinaitic 19 c. They Runes found in Scandinavia and Viking Age settlements abroad, probably in use from the 9th century onward. From the "golden age of philology " in the 19th century, runology formed a specialized branch of Runes linguistics. There are no horizontal strokes: when carving a message on a flat staff or stick, it would be along the grain, thus both less legible and more likely to split the Runes. BCE Phoenician 12 c. Little is known about the origins of Runes Runic alphabet, which is traditionally known as futhark after the Runes six letters. That is now proved, what you asked of the runes, of the potent famous ones, which the great gods made, and the mighty sage stained, that it is best for him if he stays silent. It was the main alphabet in Norway, Sweden Runes Denmark throughout the Viking Age, but was largely though not completely replaced by the Latin alphabet by about as a result of the Runes of Runes of Scandinavia to Christianity. It was probably used Runes the 5th century Runes. Incessantly plagued by maleficence, doomed to insidious death is he who breaks this monument. These inscriptions are generally Runes Elder Futharkbut the set of Runes shapes and bindrunes employed is far from standardized.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Brochure
    In Cherokee, history flows through each and every adventure. As you explore, you’ll find that the spot you’re on likely comes with a story, a belief, or a historical event that’s meaningful to the Cherokees. From Judaculla the giant’s stomping grounds to a turn in the Oconaluftee River where Uktena the snake may have lived, history is everywhere. A look back begins in 2000 B.C., when Cherokee’s ancestors were hunters and gatherers, often sharing their beliefs through storytelling, ceremonies, and dance. They would soon develop a sophisticated culture, however. In fact, by the time the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto first encountered Cherokees in 1540 A.D., they already had an agricultural system and peaceful self-government. De Soto and his explorers came looking for gold, carrying with them diseases that devastated the Cherokee population. By the late eighteenth century, the Cherokees’ land was also under attack, leading to the tragedy known as the “Trail of Tears.” In 1830, US President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, moving the Cherokees west in exchange for their homeland. The 1,200-mile journey led to more than 4,000 Cherokee deaths. Those who escaped and remained behind are the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians you know today. The modern Cherokee story is one of triumph— a strong people built on a history full of challenge. Today, you can experience that history in a wide variety of adventures. As you explore this brochure, create your own itinerary, and then head to VisitCherokeeNC.com for tickets, times, and ways to join us.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unicode Cookbook for Linguists: Managing Writing Systems Using Orthography Profiles
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2017 The Unicode Cookbook for Linguists: Managing writing systems using orthography profiles Moran, Steven ; Cysouw, Michael DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.290662 Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-135400 Monograph The following work is licensed under a Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License. Originally published at: Moran, Steven; Cysouw, Michael (2017). The Unicode Cookbook for Linguists: Managing writing systems using orthography profiles. CERN Data Centre: Zenodo. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.290662 The Unicode Cookbook for Linguists Managing writing systems using orthography profiles Steven Moran & Michael Cysouw Change dedication in localmetadata.tex Preface This text is meant as a practical guide for linguists, and programmers, whowork with data in multilingual computational environments. We introduce the basic concepts needed to understand how writing systems and character encodings function, and how they work together. The intersection of the Unicode Standard and the International Phonetic Al- phabet is often not met without frustration by users. Nevertheless, thetwo standards have provided language researchers with a consistent computational architecture needed to process, publish and analyze data from many different languages. We bring to light common, but not always transparent, pitfalls that researchers face when working with Unicode and IPA. Our research uses quantitative methods to compare languages and uncover and clarify their phylogenetic relations. However, the majority of lexical data available from the world’s languages is in author- or document-specific orthogra- phies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Translation of the Malia Altar Stone
    MATEC Web of Conferences 125, 05018 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/ matecconf/201712505018 CSCC 2017 A Translation of the Malia Altar Stone Peter Z. Revesz1,a 1 Department of Computer Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA Abstract. This paper presents a translation of the Malia Altar Stone inscription (CHIC 328), which is one of the longest known Cretan Hieroglyph inscriptions. The translation uses a synoptic transliteration to several scripts that are related to the Malia Altar Stone script. The synoptic transliteration strengthens the derived phonetic values and allows avoiding certain errors that would result from reliance on just a single transliteration. The synoptic transliteration is similar to a multiple alignment of related genomes in bioinformatics in order to derive the genetic sequence of a putative common ancestor of all the aligned genomes. 1 Introduction symbols. These attempts so far were not successful in deciphering the later two scripts. Cretan Hieroglyph is a writing system that existed in Using ideas and methods from bioinformatics, eastern Crete c. 2100 – 1700 BC [13, 14, 25]. The full Revesz [20] analyzed the evolutionary relationships decipherment of Cretan Hieroglyphs requires a consistent within the Cretan script family, which includes the translation of all known Cretan Hieroglyph texts not just following scripts: Cretan Hieroglyph, Linear A, Linear B the translation of some examples. In particular, many [6], Cypriot, Greek, Phoenician, South Arabic, Old authors have suggested translations for the Phaistos Disk, Hungarian [9, 10], which is also called rovásírás in the most famous and longest Cretan Hieroglyph Hungarian and also written sometimes as Rovas in inscription, but in general they were unable to show that English language publications, and Tifinagh.
    [Show full text]
  • Neural Substrates of Hanja (Logogram) and Hangul (Phonogram) Character Readings by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE Neuroscience http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.10.1416 • J Korean Med Sci 2014; 29: 1416-1424 Neural Substrates of Hanja (Logogram) and Hangul (Phonogram) Character Readings by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Zang-Hee Cho,1 Nambeom Kim,1 The two basic scripts of the Korean writing system, Hanja (the logography of the traditional Sungbong Bae,2 Je-Geun Chi,1 Korean character) and Hangul (the more newer Korean alphabet), have been used together Chan-Woong Park,1 Seiji Ogawa,1,3 since the 14th century. While Hanja character has its own morphemic base, Hangul being and Young-Bo Kim1 purely phonemic without morphemic base. These two, therefore, have substantially different outcomes as a language as well as different neural responses. Based on these 1Neuroscience Research Institute, Gachon University, Incheon, Korea; 2Department of linguistic differences between Hanja and Hangul, we have launched two studies; first was Psychology, Yeungnam University, Kyongsan, Korea; to find differences in cortical activation when it is stimulated by Hanja and Hangul reading 3Kansei Fukushi Research Institute, Tohoku Fukushi to support the much discussed dual-route hypothesis of logographic and phonological University, Sendai, Japan routes in the brain by fMRI (Experiment 1). The second objective was to evaluate how Received: 14 February 2014 Hanja and Hangul affect comprehension, therefore, recognition memory, specifically the Accepted: 5 July 2014 effects of semantic transparency and morphemic clarity on memory consolidation and then related cortical activations, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) Address for Correspondence: (Experiment 2). The first fMRI experiment indicated relatively large areas of the brain are Young-Bo Kim, MD Department of Neuroscience and Neurosurgery, Gachon activated by Hanja reading compared to Hangul reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Options for Handling Full Unicode Character Encodings in MARC21 a Study for the Library of Congress
    1 Assessment of Options for Handling Full Unicode Character Encodings in MARC21 A Study for the Library of Congress Part 1: New Scripts Jack Cain Senior Consultant Trylus Computing, Toronto 1 Purpose This assessment intends to study the issues and make recommendations on the possible expansion of the character set repertoire for bibliographic records in MARC21 format. 1.1 “Encoding Scheme” vs. “Repertoire” An encoding scheme contains codes by which characters are represented in computer memory. These codes are organized according to a certain methodology called an encoding scheme. The list of all characters so encoded is referred to as the “repertoire” of characters in the given encoding schemes. For example, ASCII is one encoding scheme, perhaps the one best known to the average non-technical person in North America. “A”, “B”, & “C” are three characters in the repertoire of this encoding scheme. These three characters are assigned encodings 41, 42 & 43 in ASCII (expressed here in hexadecimal). 1.2 MARC8 "MARC8" is the term commonly used to refer both to the encoding scheme and its repertoire as used in MARC records up to 1998. The ‘8’ refers to the fact that, unlike Unicode which is a multi-byte per character code set, the MARC8 encoding scheme is principally made up of multiple one byte tables in which each character is encoded using a single 8 bit byte. (It also includes the EACC set which actually uses fixed length 3 bytes per character.) (For details on MARC8 and its specifications see: http://www.loc.gov/marc/.) MARC8 was introduced around 1968 and was initially limited to essentially Latin script only.
    [Show full text]
  • Arabic Alphabet - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Arabic Alphabet from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    2/14/13 Arabic alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Arabic alphabet From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia َأﺑْ َﺠ ِﺪﯾﱠﺔ َﻋ َﺮﺑِﯿﱠﺔ :The Arabic alphabet (Arabic ’abjadiyyah ‘arabiyyah) or Arabic abjad is Arabic abjad the Arabic script as it is codified for writing the Arabic language. It is written from right to left, in a cursive style, and includes 28 letters. Because letters usually[1] stand for consonants, it is classified as an abjad. Type Abjad Languages Arabic Time 400 to the present period Parent Proto-Sinaitic systems Phoenician Aramaic Syriac Nabataean Arabic abjad Child N'Ko alphabet systems ISO 15924 Arab, 160 Direction Right-to-left Unicode Arabic alias Unicode U+0600 to U+06FF range (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf) U+0750 to U+077F (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0750.pdf) U+08A0 to U+08FF (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U08A0.pdf) U+FB50 to U+FDFF (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/UFB50.pdf) U+FE70 to U+FEFF (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/UFE70.pdf) U+1EE00 to U+1EEFF (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1EE00.pdf) Note: This page may contain IPA phonetic symbols. Arabic alphabet ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet 1/20 2/14/13 Arabic alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي History · Transliteration ء Diacritics · Hamza Numerals · Numeration V · T · E (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Arabic_alphabet&action=edit) Contents 1 Consonants 1.1 Alphabetical order 1.2 Letter forms 1.2.1 Table of basic letters 1.2.2 Further notes
    [Show full text]
  • A Logogram for YAH "Wound"
    Textdatenbank und Wörterbuch des Klassischen Maya Arbeitsstelle der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste an der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn ISSN 2366-5556 RESEARCH NOTE 17 Published 23 Jun 2020 DOI: 10.20376/IDIOM-23665556.20.rn017.en A Logogram for YAH "Wound" Nikolai Grube1 1) Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn Among the many logographic signs which so far have escaped decipherment is a head sign which shows a V-shaped stepped design in its interior1. Figure 1. The Logograph 1078 in its manifestations 1078vc, 1078va and 1078vs. Drawings by Christian Prager. The sign (Fig. 1) has been identified by Eric Thompson (1962) as T1078, and by Martha Macri and Mathew Looper (2003) as PE3. A closer look at the sign shows that its full form includes a small attached prefix with “darkness” markings (Fig. 2a-c). The example on a shell from Piedras Negras Burial 13 (Houston et al. 1998: Fig. 3) (Fig. 2c) shows that the prefixed sign has a small hook and that it most likely represents an obsidian tool, perhaps a knife, such as the personified obsidian eccentric knife on Piedras Negras Stela 8 (Fig. 2f). This affix has not received previous attention in any of the existing sign catalogues, although it does occurs independently in other contexts, such as within the stela names on the back sides of Copan Stelae F and M (Fig. 2d, e). The fact that the sign appears with exactly the same affixation when it has the “knife” sign attached to it and without it indicates 1 This research note appears a few days after a post on the blog „Maya Decipherment“ by Dimitri Beliaev and Stephen D.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing Systems Reading and Spelling
    Writing systems Reading and spelling Writing systems LING 200: Introduction to the Study of Language Hadas Kotek February 2016 Hadas Kotek Writing systems Writing systems Reading and spelling Outline 1 Writing systems 2 Reading and spelling Spelling How we read Slides credit: David Pesetsky, Richard Sproat, Janice Fon Hadas Kotek Writing systems Writing systems Reading and spelling Writing systems What is writing? Writing is not language, but merely a way of recording language by visible marks. –Leonard Bloomfield, Language (1933) Hadas Kotek Writing systems Writing systems Reading and spelling Writing systems Writing and speech Until the 1800s, writing, not spoken language, was what linguists studied. Speech was often ignored. However, writing is secondary to spoken language in at least 3 ways: Children naturally acquire language without being taught, independently of intelligence or education levels. µ Many people struggle to learn to read. All human groups ever encountered possess spoken language. All are equal; no language is more “sophisticated” or “expressive” than others. µ Many languages have no written form. Humans have probably been speaking for as long as there have been anatomically modern Homo Sapiens in the world. µ Writing is a much younger phenomenon. Hadas Kotek Writing systems Writing systems Reading and spelling Writing systems (Possibly) Independent Inventions of Writing Sumeria: ca. 3,200 BC Egypt: ca. 3,200 BC Indus Valley: ca. 2,500 BC China: ca. 1,500 BC Central America: ca. 250 BC (Olmecs, Mayans, Zapotecs) Hadas Kotek Writing systems Writing systems Reading and spelling Writing systems Writing and pictures Let’s define the distinction between pictures and true writing.
    [Show full text]