On 28/02/2014 07:41, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote: [snip] > Because it's not yours. It hasn't been created by > English people, it isn't used exclusively to write the > English language, so there's no reason to call it "the > English alphabet". This is all historically correct; then I find Christophe's stuff generally is pretty sound. On 04/03/2014 18:02, Padraic Brown wrote: [snip] > Who the hell invented the Latin alphabet? The Romans? > They're thieves! They stole it from the Etruscans who in > turn nicked it from the Greeks who in turn nam it from > the Phoenicians who, to be fair, properly inherited from > the Semites who in turn got it from the Egyptians. This is sadly incorrect. The Roman and Etruscan alphabets ultimately _derived_ from Old italic alphabets, which in turn were derived from varieties of the western Greek alphabets brought to southern Italy by settlers from of Eretria and Chalkis. There was no one Greek alphabet at the time. No one stole any alphabet from any one else. Writing spread and was adapted. *There was innovation along the way.* To contrast this so-called "thieving" with Phoenicians "properly inheriting" their abjad is bizarre, to put it politely. The Phoenicians were Semites; where they got their abjad from is still unclear AFAIK. It has been speculated that it was derived from the 'proto-Sinaitic script' known from graffiti found in the Sinai peninsular. It has also been speculated that this script was a "half-way house" between the Phoenician abjad and Egyptian hieroglyphics. But this is all *speculation* only. It is not known whether the proto-Sinaitic script was an abjad or even if it was writing at all - tho most do assume that it was. But the nature of the script is unknown, nor is the connexion, if any, with Egyptian writing known. There is the possibility - heaven forbid - that the Phoenicians actually did invent their abjad! But I'm getting a bit disillusioned with the list at the moment. I comment that "If it is as a bridge to the 'greater world' where the Roman alphabet is used, then using "v" as a vowel is not brilliant", and that prompts a whole batch of emails defending the use of _v_ as a vowel as tho defending the holy grail itself. Then exception is taken to my daring to call it the "Roman alphabet" - finally prompting this incredible rant. Sorry - I really have been trying to do some serious conlanging recently, and this rant demonstrates only too clearly why I have been corresponding privately over my present project. I really have not got time to waste on this thread any longer. I joined this list because of an interest in conlanging; when the list interferes with this, it is, I think, time to go NOMAIL. -- Ray ================================== http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt, wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun." [J.G. Hamann, 1760] "A mind that thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language".