Writing before Alphabet?

[Ozymandias]

I am an undergraduate majoring in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania, and I can assure that the writing tech should predate the alphabet tech for a number of reasons. .

Cool

Some things to clarify:

• Writing is the encoding of linguistically significant utterances (i.e. sentences/phrases/words) of an actual spoken language onto a durable surface; mathematical symbols, or mnemonic symbols are not writing (they can be classified as either proto-writing, or contemporaneous separate systems).

• 
  
  So, a priori, the "the encoding of linguistically significant utterances of an actual spoken language onto a durable surface" requires (drum roll, Maestro!) an alphabet or some such equivalent.
  
  

  [*]An alphabet is one of about a dozen types of writing used to transcribe modern languages, and but one of a theoretically infinite set

  
  Agreed.
  
  

  [*]Types of writing other than those listed by Mr. Nakashini include abjads (where only consonants are written), alpha-syllabaries (which have a base symbol for a syllable and secondary symbols which modify the base vowel in a systemic way for all divergent onsets), and "complex" which is a cover-all term for those that don't follow the five basic paradigms (e.g. Japanese combining kanji and hiragana/katakana)

  
  You forgot "'Pure' Syllabaries" -- "A syllabary in which the shapes of the syllabics bear no relation to each other. Japanese Kana script is the only example in use today."
  
  

  [*]Mr. Nakanishi is incorrect concerning the status of Chinese writing, it is not ideographic; it's primarily morpho-phonemic (~90% of the symbols), but it's best described in general as logographic (there are some that are simple representational, and some that are compound representational) – this is crucial since there are no ideographic writing systems, nor can there be

Well, I did say he was the only source I have on hand ... Nevertheless, from http://www.omniglot.com/writing/chinese_types.htm I read that "Semantic-phonetic compounds represent around 90% of all existing characters and consist of two parts: a semantic component or radical which hints at the meaning of the character [emphasis added], and a phonetic component which gives a clue to the pronunciation of the character."

Thus, an alphabet can at best coincide with the development of writing [emphasis added]

Actually, I think this makes the most sense ... which nonetheless leaves our tech tree in the proverbial air ...

It is not possible to have an alphabet before writing.

Sorry, even just given your previous (quoted) point, I see no QED here.

Best Regards,

Oz

 

[bad_ronald]

So, a priori, the "the encoding of linguistically significant utterances of an actual spoken language onto a durable surface" requires (drum roll, Maestro!) an alphabet or some such equivalent.

The most important part of this statement was :drumroll: "or some such equivalent" - many of which are, in fact, not alphabets.

You forgot "'Pure' Syllabaries" -- "A syllabary in which the shapes of the syllabics bear no relation to each other. Japanese Kana script is the only example in use today."

I didn't "forget" it; syllabary was one of the categories that Nakanishi mentioned. Though kana is 'pure' in the way you're using the term, it's not wholly a syllabary due to the moraic nasal; thus, it's not a pure syllabary.

Well, I did say he was the only source I have on hand ... Nevertheless, from http://www.omniglot.com/writing/chinese_types.htm I read that "Semantic-phonetic compounds represent around 90% of all existing characters and consist of two parts: a semantic component or radical which hints at the meaning of the character [emphasis added], and a phonetic component which gives a clue to the pronunciation of the character."

Hmm, this sounds suspiciously like what I said except semantic replaces morphemic. Interestingly enough, in all but a scant number of Chinese characters the correspondence of morphemes to characters is one to one, making any distinction between semantic-phonemic and morpho-phonemic moot (note that phonetic is not incorrect, but phonemic is more precise).

If you think that this makes the system in any way ideographic, you are mistaken. A logogram has a limited set of memorized readings while an ideogram can be interpreted broadly. A no smoking sign is an ideogram, while a Japanese character representing Friday is not (even if the symbol also represents gold - which it does ) since it has a finite set of memorized readings. A person can interpret a no smoking sign as “I can't smoke here” or “I won't be bothered by smokers here”, etc.

Actually, I think this makes the most sense ... which nonetheless leaves our tech tree in the proverbial air ...

They can coincide; they don't have to. The way that the tech tree is set up is best.

Sorry, even just given your previous (quoted) point, I see no QED here.

The OP states "but isn't it illogical to have writing before the alphabet?"; my QED is not only that it is logical to have writing before alphabet but also that it is not possible to have alphabet before writing (look up 'coincide' if you're still confused ).

Best Regards,

Oz

Yours truly,

Bad_Ronald

 

[Ozymandias]

The OP states "but isn't it illogical to have writing before the alphabet?"; my QED is not only that it is logical to have writing before alphabet but also that it is not possible to have alphabet before writing (look up 'coincide' if you're still confused ).

Yours truly,

Bad_Ronald

Touche'. (Sorry, I don't know how to get the accent quite right.) Although I'm afraid we'll nevertheless have to agree to disagree on the sequencing of Tech Tree items.

Best,

Oz

 

[Dracleath]

I always thought it odd that alphabet was a tech in civilization in the first place - being that probably at least a quarter of the worlds populations has managed to do just fine without one for thousands of years. It's rather like having "driving on the right" or "Red-green stoplights" as preceding or succeding techs for "the automobile".

 

[Ozymandias]

I always thought it odd that alphabet was a tech in civilization in the first place - being that probably at least a quarter of the worlds populations has managed to do just fine without one for thousands of years.

I've always been intrigued by "quipu" -- Incan colored knotted cotton cords used to convey information in lieu of writing, each "a seven-bit binary code capable of conveying more than 1,500 separate units of information." Yet neither writing nor alphabet ... Note it doesn't meet Bad_Ronald's criteria of, "Writing is the encoding of linguistically significant utterances (i.e. sentences/phrases/words) of an actual spoken language onto a durable surface; mathematical symbols, or mnemonic symbols are not writing (they can be classified as either proto-writing, or contemporaneous separate systems)." Hmmm ... must be a contemporaneous separate system ... Still (from a Tech-Tree-POV) not a bad precursor for binary logic and ultimately computers ...

-Oz

 

[dh_epic]

As far as anthropologists and historians go, hieroglyphics, pictograms, and cuneiform are all systems of writing. They may not be writing in the way we think of writing, but that's what Civ means.

If you want to learn more about cuneiform, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform_script

 

[tai4ji2x]

for more information on why chinese is not a really an "ideographic" nor "pictographic" script (as pointed out by bad_ronald's clarifications), one of the more authoratative sources is "the chinese language: fact and fantasy" by john defrancis
http://www.pinyin.info/readings/chinese_language.html
http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/ideographic_myth.html (sample chapter)

 

[Psyringe]

What a strange discussion ... I don't understand how it can go on for such a long time, as the correct information is already there andhas been stated numerous times.

"Writing" is the concept of putting down language onto medium, like stone, paper, or clay.

"Alphabet" is a very specific technique of writing, which breaks word down into sounds, and (roughly) associates each sound with a sign. This is an advanced technique, which theoretically *may* be invented together with the concept of writing itself, but usually it follows some hundred years afterwards. (As has been said, hieroglyphs, cuneiform etc. are all non-alphabetic)

The Civ4 tech tree finally got that right. It didn't really hurt that it was wrong in previous civs (it really wasn't a showstopping error ), but ot's correct as it is now.

 

[TerraHero]

the Alphabet is nothing more then the "organizing" if writings.

 

[Ozymandias]

"Writing" is the concept of putting down language onto medium, like stone, paper, or clay.

"Alphabet" is a very specific technique of writing, which breaks word down into sounds, and (roughly) associates each sound with a sign. This is an advanced technique, which theoretically *may* be invented together with the concept of writing itself, but usually it follows some hundred years afterwards. (As has been said, hieroglyphs, cuneiform etc. are all non-alphabetic)

It's interesting to argue that an alphabet is a more "advanced" concept than ideograms et. al. -- and it's arguably true; one theory why the worship of Amon Ra (do I have that right?) as the one & only Egyptian deity (and, coincidentally, why Judaism might not have spread wider than it did) is that an alphabet lends itself more readily to abstractions ("one invisible God") than, e.g., pictograms, which would only really hold direct associations with more concrete manifestations.

Also note by the general view seemingly held in this discussion that modern East Asians et. al. have managed to achieved such accomplishments as manned space flight without ever having "researched" an alphabet.

Best,

Oz

 

[Good Omens]

A bit of a side question...would Nakashani's book be accessible to an intelligent person without much linguistic training? I'm very intrigued by linguistics, and know a smattering of information, but I never studied it formally.

 

[Ozymandias]

A bit of a side question...would Nakashani's book be accessible to an intelligent person without much linguistic training? I'm very intrigued by linguistics, and know a smattering of information, but I never studied it formally.

Very accessible -- it's basically a survey of writing systems, both historical and contemporary. A typical heading - "Thai Script" -- covers "consonants", "vowel signs", "conjunct consonants", "syllables & tones", "other signs", "reading and punctuation", and "numerals -- in about 1-1/2 pages.

-Oz

 

[MrCynical]

I suspect having writing before alphabet mainly looks odd to people who have been used to them being the other way round for the past three civ games. There was quite a long debate on this subject in the suggestions forum a while before civ 4 was released which may well be the reason for the change.

Personally I can conceive having writing without alphabet, just having a different symbol or pictogram for each object, idea, etc. An alphabet is no conceivable use without a written language, since it would be a collection of letters corresponding to, usually meaningless, sounds. It can be a useful development in a language (especially when movable type in printing becomes an issue), but has no real place on its own. Having writing before alphabet therefore seems more logical.

 

[Vietcong]

but picture wrighting and stuff like sand script are a form of alhpabet

 

[Good Omens]

but picture wrighting and stuff like sand script are a form of alhpabet

No, not really. An alphabet has a small number of symbols (I remember reading that it's defined as having 30 or fewer), while pictographic writing has many more.

 

[lebowski]

yeah, what he (^) said.

 

[lysander]

but picture wrighting and stuff like sand script are a form of alhpabet

An alphabet uses symbols to stand for the sounds that make up a word. Non-alphabetic language uses symbols to stand for the ideas themselves.

Early forms of writing were simple depictions, usually of things owed from one person to another. These would not use an alphabet, it would be closer to two abstracted pictures of a cow written on a piece of clay, symbolizing that someone owed the owners two cows. Later, societies realized how much more versatile an alphabetic system would be. It is much easier to teach someone how to construct phoenetic words with letters than it would be to teach someone the "correct" picture for every single object and idea that a human would wish to write about. But no one would develop a system for recording sounds and then start writing, the system of recording sounds is a way to make writing easier. Having alphabet before writing would be a lot like having curency before trade.

 

[panzooka]

alphabet doesnt mean writing, the chinese alphabet/pinyin is only used to construct the prenounciation of a character. so teaching is easier, and more accurate.
but chinese alphabet/pinyin is popular as a method in computer keyboard input

 

[Ranos]

Whether you are talking about an alphabet where each letter has an individual sound or pictographs that are nothing more than a picture of what you are saying (picture of a cow), they all came after somebody started writing. The first cave drawings depicting a successful hunt were the first form of writing. As time went on and the human population grew in various areas, it became necessary to standardize what was being depicted. That would be the development of the first alphabet. We can go into caves today that have crude pictures drawn on the wall showing a group of figures with spears surrounding a wooly mamoth, we all know that it is depicting the hunt. The person that drew those pictures got his point across. That is, imho, writing.

To the person who said "Alphabet was never researched," or something like that, (sorry I don't remember and don't have time to look) nothing in those ancient times was researched. Somebody came up with the idea by looking at something (a stone rolling down a hill perhaps led to the first wheel) and realizing that it could be reproduced and modified to be used to benefit the tribe. Researching a tech Civ style is just a way to integrate technology into the game in a controllable fashion. It would be kind of fun just to have techs get discovered without any control. That was one of the great options in SMAC.