Paul O Bartlett wrote:
> For example, I have read that modern linguists
> have made few if any improvements on the brilliant Sequoyah's syllabary
> for the Cherokee language.

It is true that modern linguists have made no changes to the Cherokee
syllabary. But not because of Sequoyah's brilliance, for three reasons:

1. The syllabary is not brilliant, its grapheme-phoneme correspondence
is about the worst I've seen in a designed orthography.

2. The Cherokee Nation is happy with the syllabary the way it is,
regardless of its failings, and has not asked modern linguists to help
them reform it.

3. The syllabary was not created by Sequoyah, it was created by his
daughter. [But young Indian females didn't do things like that back
then, and if they did, they kept quiet about it. Sequoyah was apparently

> Regrettably, because of the dominance of Roman civilization and later
> the Catholic Church in the West, we have become rather stuck with it,

Speak for yourself. :)

-- Mark

(Mark P. Line  --  Bellevue, Washington  --  <[log in to unmask]>)