Sequoyah’s syllabary created a written language for the Cherokee
Sequoyah’s 19th‑century invention of the Cherokee syllabary is highlighted as a rare case of a mostly new writing system that rapidly enabled mass literacy, with some commenters noting how exposure to European scripts likely influenced its glyph shapes. From there the conversation broadens into how writing systems map (or fail to map) to spoken language, touching on English orthography, the impact of early printing technology on letter forms, and the distinction between phonetic, phonemic, and abjad-based scripts. Participants also explore the deeper history and genealogy of alphabets worldwide, debate whether most scripts ultimately descend from a single Canaanite source, and raise questions about what an “efficient” language or script would even mean in information-theoretic terms.
Cherokee Syllabary & Historical Context
- Wikipedia links on the Cherokee syllabary are shared; commenters note that by 1825 most Cherokees could reportedly read/write it.
- Comparisons are made to rapid literacy in 19th‑century Hawaiʻi after missionaries introduced an alphabet.
- There is disagreement over whether Sequoyah was truly monolingual Cherokee:
- One side repeats the “monolingual” narrative.
- Others argue this is doubtful, citing his European parentage, military service, trade contacts, and the clear visual borrowing from Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Cyrillic letterforms.
- The story that contemporaries saw his writing as “magic” is tied to unfamiliarity with writing and led to a witchcraft trial, though records are lacking.
Writing Systems, Phonetics, and English Orthography
- Commenters contrast a purpose-built syllabary’s phonetic simplicity with English’s irregular spelling.
- Discussion covers: loss of older English letters (þ, ð, long s, yogh), printing-press and typewriter influence, and how these technologies nudged but did not fully determine orthographic simplification.
- Several posts differentiate phonetic vs. phonemic writing and argue that fully phonetic transcription (e.g., raw IPA) would be impractical for everyday writing.
Origins of Alphabets and Scripts
- A long subthread debates whether nearly all alphabets derive from Proto‑Sinaitic / Canaanite scripts.
- Counterexamples raised: Hangul, Zhuyin, Japanese kana, Phags‑pa, Brahmic scripts.
- Others respond that:
- Syllabaries aren’t alphabets.
- Brahmic scripts are probably derived from Aramaic (and thus Proto‑Sinaitic), though a minority of scholars argue for an indigenous origin.
- There is detailed back‑and‑forth on abjad vs true alphabet, and on how well Hebrew or Arabic map sounds to letters, with no consensus.
Efficiency and Redundancy in Languages
- Someone wonders about the “most compact and efficient” language.
- Replies bring in Shannon’s notion of redundancy and relate it to crossword puzzles and literary examples, and mention hyper-compact conlang Ithkuil.
- Others note that “efficiency” depends on alphabet size, phoneme inventory, morphology, and shared vocabulary.
Article Framing and Missing Glyphs
- Several criticize the Smithsonian piece for omitting actual Cherokee glyph examples and for a slightly sensational original title.
- HN’s title is updated to better match the article; posters praise Wikipedia and Omniglot for providing the concrete tables, samples, and broader script context.