Re: Awesomesauce Esperanto problem Reply #50 – 2016-09-04, 17:09:32 Quote from: ersi on 2016-09-04, 15:17:56You mean logogram as opposed to logograph has fallen out of favour? The issue with those words is how to derive the adjective. Logographic sounds better than logogrammic or logogrammatic, hence the noun tends to be logograph. The same tension is with words ideogram and pictogram, with adjectives ideographic and pictographic.That's what I said. It might mean that logogram has fallen out of favor, or it could just be avoidance tactics.Quote from: ersi on 2016-09-04, 15:17:56As to evolution of alphabets from pictographic to logographic and phonographic, yes, that be the Darwinian view, not well supported in reality. Evolution of Egyptian writing, otherwise going through amazing transformation from hieroglyphs to alphabet, seems to be missing the pictographic phase (paintings and writings, even though very often on the same surface, were always separate things down to the remotest history), whereas Chinese has a rather good connection to the pictographic phase, but never evolved into an alphabet.You can blame the "Darwinian" summary at least partially on me (imo a goal- or ladder-based view of evolution is not the least bit Darwinian), since the book itself immediately continues by saying that e.g. Egyptian hieroglyphics displayed all three "phases" simultaneously. In any case the book is about our alphabet, so it describes the attested evolution of our own alphabet from Phoenician onward, with an eye on connections with e.g. hieroglyphics and the quite clearly at least slightly related Sinai writings.Quote from: ersi on 2016-09-04, 15:17:56Overall, script is something for people with way too much time in their hands. Normally people have other concerns.Hunter-gatherers "worked" for a couple of hours a day at most to provide for their needs. The rest was spare time. They probably didn't spend it writing, but either way we have the exact opposite of too much time on our hands.