Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
austin-cheney | on: Sequoyah’s syllabary created a written language for the Cherokee
Another counter-example is Phags Pa Script.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BCPhags-pa_script

buildsjets | parent
Explain. The wiki you linked to specifically states that it is descended from Tibetan script, which is in turn descended from Proto-Sinaitic script.
austin-cheney | root | parent
The article said nothing like that. It was an original script invented by a Tibetan monk at the paid directions of Kublai Khan.

> Descending from Tibetan script, it is part of the Brahmic family of scripts, which includes Devanagari and scripts used throughout Southeast Asia and Central Asia.[5] It is unique among Brahmic scripts in that it is written from top to bottom,[5] as how classical Chinese used to be written, and as the Mongolian alphabet or later Manchu alphabet is still written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BCPhags-pa_script

> The origin of the script is still much debated, with most scholars stating that Brahmi was derived from or at least influenced by one or more contemporary Semitic scripts. Some scholars favour the idea of an indigenous origin,[19] or connection to the much older and as yet undeciphered Indus script[20][21] but the evidence is insufficient at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmi_script

So maybe, but probably not and this particular language though it has roots elsewhere of debated origin was an original spontaneous creation.

cwnyth | root | parent
"but probably not": Actually, probably so. The scholars who favor the indigenous explanation are a small minority outside of India. It's possible it was independent, but very, very doubtful, and none can explain the enormous gap in time between the Indus script and later Brahmic scripts.
austin-cheney | root | parent
What does it matter if some scholars are from outside of India? All I am seeing are conclusions from unstated assumptions that appear to be drawn from a bias.

My conclusions are coming directly from the Wikipedia articles that I linked to. If I am that wrong then edit the Wikipedia articles.

reissbaker | root | parent
The Wikipedia articles say the majority of scholars believe it's based on Aramaic, while a minority of people (primarily non-linguistic-specialists in India) disagree. I think you're the one drawing from bias.