Merci pour vos reponses! Better switch to english as this seem to be the preferred language here! Pour ma part, je sens effectivement que je switche au sens linguistique du terme. Bouh que mon anglais doit être moche
On that part of the forum, yes. But there is a french-speaking part, more active, whence come most of ours (and especially administrators and moderators) - see index of the forum, high up on the page. However, let we keep on speaking english (of something similar to...).
Regarding Sisyphe's comment, although I am no linguistics expert, to me the Amharic script, which I studied in elementary school at the French Lycee in Addis Abeba, is more of an alphabet, with 34 letters each of which has 7 modifications to incorporate vowels:
the first letter is ha and its forms are ha hou hi ha he heu ho, none of which have any particular meaning. (I tried to get a web reference for the Ethiopic alphabet, but could not find one).
Does the Glagolitic alphabet follow a similar pattern?
What you are discribing is what is called syllabary (fr. "un syllabaire") by linguistics. Actually, ge'ez and amharic writings are an alphasyllabary
, or "abugida", or "half-syllabary writing". As says Wikipedia
An abugida or alphasyllabary is a writing system composed of signs (graphemes) denoting consonants with an inherent following vowel, which are consistently modified to indicate other vowels (or, in some cases, the lack of a vowel). Examples include Ethiopic and scripts of the Brahmic family.
For example, in Devanagari there is no basic sign representing the consonant k; rather the unmodified character क represents the syllable ka (a is the so-called "inherent" vowel). This vowel may be changed by adding vowel marks to the basic character, producing other syllables beginning with k-; कि = ki, कु = ku, के = ke, को = ko. These marks are applied systematically to other consonantal characters, e.g. from ल, la, is formed लि = li, लु = lu, ले = le, लो = lo.
In many abugidas, there is also a modification to suppress the inherent vowel, yielding the bare consonant (Devanagari: क् = k, ल् = l). This is called the virama (from Sanskrit) or halant (from Hindi), and may be used to form consonant clusters, or when a consonant occurs at the end of a word. Other means of expressing these functions also occur, such as special conjunct forms in which two or more consonant characters are merged to express a cluster (Devanagari: क्ल = kla (note that on some computer systems this may display as क् followed by ल, rather than forming a conjunct)).
Glagolitic is not abugida, but merely an alphabet, as the word has to be used in linguistics ; like latin (the ours), greek or cyrillic alphabets : one letter = one phoneme (sound), wether vowel or consonant.
The response of ElieDeLeuze, while interesting, would not explain the wide variety of alphabets that have evolved around the world from Ancient Egypt to Greek to Singalese to Chinese, not doubt using similar writing tools and materials. It would be an extraordinary coincidence if these had all developed similar letters!
Not so wondering. There is seven similarities between japanese and "linear B" (used in Greece before the appareance of current alphabet) syllabaries ; and absolutly no one realationship between them.
Glagolitic and amharic look alike, indeed ; but there is no real similarity, no more than between egyptian demotic and siamese cursive.
Elie mentionned likeness of writing methods (pen,s feathers, etc.). We would add the situation of writers : both writing system are fated to be used of holy texts, used and gone on by monks, who have lot of time for ornamenting and stylising their letters. See an oncial- or fraktur-written french maedieval manuscript, it would be probably look like amharic too.
Even if we found glagolitic texts in sinaic monasteries, I think there is no relationship to search. Because of Alexander the Great, you find greek inscriptions till Pakistan, but no consequency. As the great french linguist Michel Lejeune said, creating a writing system called 'B' from a w.s. called 'A' requires three generations :
The first are bilingual natives of B country, using A system for writing A language.
The second one are bilingual natives too, using A system for B language, with some difficulties, while A writing is not done for B language.
The third one are not yet bilingual, they adapt A writing so that it could be used for B language - they delete some letters, creat other ones, etc.
That is what happened for glagolitic and cyrillic (even if St Cyrile of the monk Method have "setted" the new writing, its idea, its concept and its necessity must have been feeled by some other (and anonym) monks before them. Moreover, glagolitic is precisly a stage, a temptative, between greek and current cyrillic).