Talk:Canadian Aboriginal syllabics

message: They all become squares on my computer. Is that normal?
:Yes.  Download and install the fonts here and the problem will go away.  Diderot 23:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The alphabets

message: I've eliminated the references to Sekani as there is no evidence that the Sekani ever wrote their own language in syllabics. Some Sekani people did know syllabics, but they used them to read and write Carrier.
Bill 08:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sekani

message: I've changed the transcription of the vowel-only series for Carrier.
The previous transcription was not IPA - it was evidently based on a misunderstanding of the Carrier Linguistic Committee writing system, which is the Roman system introduced by the SIL that is now the most widely used writing system for Carrier. In that writing system 
represents /ʌ/ and <oo> represents /u/. Someone evidently thought that <oo> stood for long /o/. I have substituted the correct IPA symbols.
Bill 19:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Carrier Transcription

message: Folks, why are the syllabics vowels ordered the way they are in this article? When James Evans wrote his Speller's... in 1837, the vowels he used were A, E, O, U (our E, I, O, A), which became the basis for the syllabics' vowel order. Even the pDAM that made the proposal to the UniCode Consortium present each shape with the names in the E, I, O, A order... not A, O, I, E. Could we re-arrange the tables appropriately, and also flip the groups-of-four so that E is shown at NW or N position, I is shown at NE or S position, O is shown at SW or W position and A is shown at SE or E position? CJLippert (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First point well taken, and done. Second would destroy the illustration of symmetry that is the whole point of grouping the letters that way. kwami (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the first. As for the second, it will still maintain symmetry. CJLippert (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  parsing order of the vowels 

message: Please someone who knows what this is about, could you please correct the note under the image "Evan's script" in the "Basic principles" section: the phrase "Long vowels were now indicated by breaking" is self-contradictory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LGon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Contradictory how? kwami (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Originally, Evans indicated long vowels by cutting out a chunk of the syllabic character’s type, in effect ‘breaking’ the character. See this link: http://www.languagegeek.com/syl/1841_syllabics_chart.html   languagegeek (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, your explanation makes it very clear. If that phrase had read "Long vowels were now indicated by breaking the characters", I wouldn't have been confused.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LGon (talk • contribs) 03:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image note on "Evan's script"

message: I have fonts installed for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics yet the wikipedias for languages written in this script still appear as squares. Can anyone help me? Kanzler31 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they Unicode fonts? — kwami (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Downloaded on Languagegeek on the multilingual help.Kanzler31 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just making sure, you got the AboriginalSerif.zip? Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 04:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have Aboriginal Serif fonts (+Pigiarniq and Aboriginal sans) yet still not working. Kanzler31 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK FINALLY I found the problem here. I am using Safari (don't use Internet Explorer) yet it does not display properly, while if I use Internet Explorer the font displays perfectly. Is there any way to make Aboriginal Syllabics appear on Safari? Thanks.Kanzler31 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I don't have Safari. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font problems 

message: The image is annotated as Swampy Cree.  The image file itself identifies the language as Plains Cree.  Can someone with better information work out which is correct? -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor who's no longer active added it as 'Plains Cree' and then immediately changed it to 'Swampy Cree'. That doesn't look like an oversight, but I don't know if he's still around to ask why. — kwami (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: I believe I am missing the point... , by adding "a logogram for Christ" to the sentence "The final hk, however, is ᕽ, a small version of the Greek letter Χ kh" are you saying James Evans picked the Greek letter chi to represent final hk because it has been used as a logogram for Christ? DRMcCreedy (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly.  At least, that's what the source I was using said.  So while most finals are from shorthand, that one is not.  I would assume that its choice was a reflection of Evans' missionary work.  I don't read our text as saying that its use in syllabics is as a logogram for Christ, but we should certainly clarify if that's how you're reading it.  — kwami (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reading it that (wrong) way.  I would change to The final hk, however, is ᕽ, a small version of the Greek letter Χ kh chosen because Χ is a logogram for Christ.[your reference here] -- DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite your reference.  DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final hk 

message: This issue has been bothering me since wikipedia has introduced me to the classification of writing systems.
To me, it's clear that there currently are multiple definitions of "Abugida" and "Syllabary" at play on wikipedia. This is troubling to me because they draw the line on different sides of Syllabics.
For example Syllabary contains 'they are synthetic, if they vary by onset, rime, nucleus or coda, or systematic, if they vary by all of them'. While this definition of a categorization of Syllabary isn't cited, it's still a section of text on wikipedia that pushes the definition of "Syllabary" to a point of describing Syllabics.
Second example, Abugida states, while deliberately being precise, 'An Abugida is defined as "a type of writing system whose basic characters denotes consonants followed by a particular vowel, and in which diacritics denote other vowels".' This definition of Abugida is below the line of defining Syllabics, Despite these two quotations, the majority of the rest of wikipedia (reasonably) treats Syllabics as both not being a Syllabary and as being an Abugida.
My primary issue is that among the strict definitions for Abugida and Syllabary given in the wiki, neither actually covers Syllabics. I'm operating under the impression that, for whatever reason, possibly its influences, Syllabics is being treated as an Abugida for a mixture of  reasons:
# It's convenient to place it under a definition which is established in the literature (regardless of which definition it's placed under)
# Internet pop science having aligned Syllabics under being an Abugida in order to distinguish its impressive regularity from that of "Proper Syllabaries" such as the kana
My issue with categorizing it under Abugida is in two points:
First, no matter what anyone says, there's no reliable inherent vowel in any of the consonant series of Evans' script with which to derive a base character. Even if a particular variant of Syllabics can point to the final consonant diacritics as being a base character, this cannot be assigned to the entire family. Please note that this first point is only applying to the context of that formal definition given in the Abugida page, where it specifies [base character which implies a particular vowel].
Second, interpreting "diacritics" as not extra marks or contour mutations but instead a broad concept of consistent modification foregoes the formal definition.
On the second point, the page Abugida contains the following statement, with a citation: 'There are three principal families of abugidas, depending on whether vowels are indicated by modifying consonants by diacritics, distortion, or orientation.[8]'
However, the citation in question is not describing abugidas, but an abstract family of "alphasyllabic scripts".
The writer goes on to describe from logographs to the alphabet, in a spectrum. But not does he call Syllabics an "Abugida"; he calls Syllabics an "alphasyllabic system". His description of this term says "syllables are recognized as units, but are represented by symbols that acknowledge an awareness of the underlying consonants and vowels."
He lists the strict abugidas, and says "the basic symbol represents a consonant and implies by default a simple vowel. Diacritics are added to represent a change in that associated vowel."
He then describes Ethiopic with "the basic symbol represents a consonant, and the associated vowel is shown by systematic distortion".
He then describes Syllabics as "the basic symbol represents a consonant, and its orientation [...] reveals the vowel".
He even, of course, includes Hangul in this family of alphasyllabic systems: "consonants and vowels are fully analyzed and each has its own grapheme, but these [...] are recombined in compound glyphs or clusters that each portray a syllable".
The description of Ethiopic and Syllabics disagree with the formal definition of "Abugida" given in differentiating it from Alphasyllabics (which, by the way, is also a term being used differently in the above list of citations). The inclusion of Hangul under the term "alphasyllabic system" is even more damning to the fact that this citation is using completely different categorization than wikipedia.
This means that this citation was not used as a means of articulating on subcategories of abugida and what systems fall under which category. Instead, the relevance to the section it's cited in is only in describing the visually obvious: [These categories denote vowels in different ways].
I strongly believe that a particular set of problems is present in the way wikipedia currently handles the spectrum of phonetically descriptive non-alphabetical systems.
# Particular definitions are chosen, and the variety of distinctions between them in the literature is not accurately or consistently applied.
# There exists at least one citation which applies different terminology than the cited material uses.
# Even when the terminology in the article and citation are using the same words, morphology can change their meaning. For example, Abugida uses "alphasyllabary" and defines it different than the above list of quotations uses "alphasyllabic".
I believe that one of the following should be done:
# Writing system definitions on wikipedia should all be made strict and conservative, and systems like Syllabics that do not literally fall under those definitions should be classified under broader or even strictly descriptive terms.
# Valid definitions of writing system terminology should be outlined, even if not conservative, according to how wikipedia is currently approximately using those terms (and errors corrected where necessary); then, external information must be vetted according to ensure that wikipedia is referencing it equivalently.
# Extensive explanation of the varying existing definitions, semantics, and categorizations of "alphasyllabic systems" should be permeated through all those pages where any distinction more advanced than [pure abugida, i.e. those with vowel mutation diacritics] is necessary.
This challenge is under the Syllabics talk page instead of the Abugida one due to the fact that my argument is broadly from the perspective of the difficulty of consistently applying the categorization of this system with the descriptions given in the present wikipedia.
This challenge was edited to articulate on a choice of words.
Wareya (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing system category definition semantics 

message: I've never heard about these scripts before; but I find the article rather interesting.  Let me summarise what I understood from the article; and please tell me if I have misunderstood somethings.
*The script originated from the work of one known person, a missionary.  It later was changed and acquired variants, by the habits or concious efforts of other people using it for different languages or dialects.
* The script was developed in order to be used in existing languages (or mainly in one of a group of related languages with similar features), since the orthography of the inventor's native language was not well suited for this 'target language'. The newly invented script, on the other hand, was well adapted for its target language, and was readily accepted by many of its speakers.
*The original inventor of the script took an interest also in other languages, and knew some scripts rather different from the one employed in his native language.  He used features from such scripts, where this seemed convenient for achieving better correspondence to his target language.
*The script was eventually a success, both among the speakers of the immediate target language, and in a higher or lower degree for speakers of related languages.
*The script, or rather its descented variants, are in officially sanctioned use today; however, with some smaller fracas, caused by the tendency of a naturally used script to diverge (especially as it is used for several languages) on the one hand, and a wish from the authorities for a unified general usage on the other.
Did I get this roughly right?  And do you agree that the description in its main parts also largely might be applicable for the eventual development of the Cyrillic alphabet − although its original variant (probably close to the one named Kyrillovitsa in Old Church Slavonic) was created not by one missionary, but by two missionary brothers, Saints Cyril and Methodius.  (For instance, I may remind you that the Cyrillic sha in general is believed to be derived from the Hebrew shin; and that one of the problems the brothers had to address was the distinction between the "hard" and the "soft" vowels, still a very important feature of slavic languages.)
Some speculation: In fact, I find it likely that several other scripts originally were similarly originated by one or a few people, although we today have no idea of their names.  The oldest known Phoenician script like variant, the Proto-Sinaitic, shows both a principal affinity with the Egyptian hieroglyphic script, and important differences.  In the hieroglyphic text, the main phonetic value is given by one hieroglyph for each consonant; but these are mixed with lots of hieroglyphs carrying other meanings.  My guess is that one or a few people, who knew at least one of the Egyptian scripts (and possibly also knew some cuneiform script) had the idea of using only consonant signs, as an adaption to some Canaanite dialect.  Of course this hypothesis is virtually impossible to prove (although it could be disproved).  Similarly, the earliest percussor of the Devanagari may have been developed by someone knowing some semitic script.
All this comparison and speculation justifiedly could be brandished WP:OR, and I do not suggest any of it to be included in any one of our articles.  However, it might motivate a removal of :Category:Artificial scripts from this article.  I cannot see the validity in calling any writing system created for use in a language not having any established written form "artificial", just since we happen to know its inventor(s), and these made some (or many) innovations making the script more suitable for their target language.  If the innovations made their work successful (and thereby also ensured that they had numerous followers who gradually changed the script, then this script is not "artificial".
Of course, as I said, I know very little about the Canadian syllabics; and there may be some good reason I'm not aware of for considering this but not other innovative scripts artificial.  If so, please explain this reason to me! JoergenB (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prejudiced artificial classification? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Indigenous peoples in Northern Canada which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There have been competing edits on the topic of who created the script. A recent editor reinserted the claim for Mistanaskowew. I hope nobody starts an edit war on this. I have additional data and I believe I have a way to word it that will be acceptable to many.  But it may take me a week. Pete unseth (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competing claims as to who created the script -- no edit war needed 

message: I can understand why one might want to remove aboriginal from the name, but on the other hand it does seem to have some standing as an official name for the script. Regardless, the article name and the lead should match. If you cannot convince other editors to accept to move the article, then change the name in the lead back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Either move the article or change the lead 

message: I have checked the sample displayed for the Square form of the Canadian Aboriginal syllabics: most of the characters fit into somewhat oblong rectangles (not squares), which are also somewhat different from each other.
I guess these "slacks" are allowed by a realistic concept of the Square form. I would propose making the description more tolerant, ~ "Square form […] same or similar letter heights, and occupying (relatively) uniform, square or near-square spaces" – something like that, in a good English style though. :)
Javítgató (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Square form, some irregularity should be allowed?