Lars, > * Kenneth Whistler (in an earlier posting) > | > | 2. Script B is a de novo design influenced strongly by Script A. > | > | 3. Script B borrowed formal and/or functional characteristics of > | Script A. >
> Unless I am missing something both 2. and 3. involves a cloning of > concepts, and the difference is that in 2. the design is new, while in > 3. it is not. > > So it seems these situations can be captured in this way: > > 2: Script has no derived-from relationship, but at least one > influenced-by relationship > > 3: Script has a derived-from relationship, and zero or more > influenced-by relationships > > Am I right? (I'm asking because I need to be able to express this in > terms of topic maps, and your original formulations do not work > entirely inside that model.) This is about what I was driving at. Although I might still quibble with your terminology a bit. Features that are borrowed from alien systems are still "derived from" those alien systems. That is, you can trace a direct historic relationship of descent from the *other* system. The key distinction is between featural changes that result from changes motivated internally in the system (e.g., changes in letter forms due to handwriting practice, which might result in mergers or splits in forms, or reorganization of a system), and changes which represent direct lifting of features from an external system. The former a historical linguist would characterize as "genetic", and the latter as "borrowings". And I think the same principles apply to other systems, such as writing systems, as well as to phonological and other purely linguistic systems. --Ken
