Συζήτηση:Ελληνικό αλφάβητο/Αρχείο 1: Διαφορά μεταξύ των αναθεωρήσεων
Περιεχόμενο που διαγράφηκε Περιεχόμενο που προστέθηκε
Γραμμή 569:
== Ένα ακόμη ερώτημα στον συντάκτη του άρθρου ==
Επειδή στο άρθρο μεταξύ άλλων γραφεις ότι η άποψη του Gelb για το συλλαβικό χαρακτήρα των σημιτικών γραφών έχει δεχτεί έντονη κριτική τα τελευταία χρόνια, ως μη λαμβάνουσα υπόψη την ιδιαιτερότητα των συμφώνων στις σημιτικές γλώσσες, μαζί με άλλα επιχειρήματα και εννοείς ότι δε χρειάζεται να μας απασχολεί πλέον, '''σου παραθέτω ενδεικτικά ένα από τα πολλα επιχειρήματα του Gelb και περιμένω να ακούσουμε από σένα το πώς οι γλωσσολόγοι που επικαλείσαι το αντεκρουσαν.''' Για να μην υπάρχουν αμφιβολίες για το τι ακριβώς είπε ο Gelb, παραθέτω το επιχείρημά του στα Αγγλικά. Το επίχεί ρημα το αντλώ από το βιβλίο του Gelb ''A Study of Writing''. <br />
"Another point in favour of the syllabic character of the Semitic writing results from the investigation of the shewa writing. When under Greek influence, the Semites introduced a vocalic system into their writings they created not only some diacritic marks for full vowels, such as ''a, e, i, o, u,'' but also one mark called ''shewa'' which, when attached to a sign, characterizes it as a consonant alone. If the Semitic signs were originally consonantal then there would simply be no use for the ''shewa'' mark. The fact that the Semites felt the necessity of creating a mark showing lack of a vowel means that to them every sign originally stood for a full syllable.<br />
Even more important conclusions can be drawn from the Ethiopic and Indic writings. The Ethiopic writing is a formal development of South Arabic, and both of them are formally identical with the Semitic writings in the north. When, a few centuries after Christ, the Ethiopians decided to introduce into their writing a system of vowel notation, they invented not only special marks for the full vowels ''a, e, i, o, u,'' but also one mark for the ''shewa'', as in North Semitic. The most important feature, however, is that the basic sign, without any vowel marks, expressed not the consonant alone but a syllable consisting of a consonant plus the vowel a! Surely, if the Semitic writing were originally consonantal, one might legitimately have expected the basic sign, without any marks, to express the consonant alone and a special mark invented for the consonant plus the ''a'' vowel. <br />
The situation in the Indic systems is almost identical: special marks exist for the individual vowels, one mark indicates no vowel, but a syllable consisting of a consonant plus a vowel a is represented by the basic sign without any additional marks. The great similarity or even identity of the Ethiopic and Indic systems is due to the fact that structurally, if not formally, all the various Indic writings are derived from a Semitic prototype.<br />
From the fact that in the Indic and Ethiopic writings a consonant
| |||