Egyptian hieroglyphs as the Western equivalent to Chinese characters?

Also because no one seems to have mentioned this. We don't even need to make it so Latin characters don't exist just that Rome doesn't exist or at least doesn't have an empire. Before Rome everyone in Europe had their own language, Germans for example used runes.

If Roman influence doesn't go anywhere or at least not past Italy then the rest of the world will see Latin characters (Moderm Alphabet) as strange, there for hyrogliphs survive as well as other languages.

You seems to be confusing language and writing system, but the point is that runes and other scripts used in Europe before the general diffusion of the Latin characters (which was pretty late, for instance, in Germany - the runes themselves are probably derived from either Latin or Greek, and they do not predate Roman expansion) were all alphabetic, or almost so (Iberian script is a fairly strange form of alphasyllabic, or perhaps a type of its own).
Hieroglyphs are not only different in look, they are different in system.
 
Every script turns into an alphabet, no exceptions. The only reason China avoided it because it is no such country tier, and "Chinese" are a bunch of unrelated peoples, so the only way to understand each other is to write like that

Actually, Chinese characters didn't avoid that - in its Old Chinese form, it was essentially a syllabary, and its modern form is basically as functional and reliable for the various regionalects (as a morphosyllabic orthography) as the Latin alphabet is with English (which relies on a mnemonic array of morphology, etymology, and grammar, with some concessions to phonology). The failure to recognize Sinitic as a separate branch made up of separate languages is basically to confuse speech and writing; i.e. treating all languages written in the (Perso-)Arabic script as "dialects" of Arabic when they are anything but.
 
Cuneiform seems to be much more suitable than Egyptian Hieroglyphics for a "like Chinese characters" sort of writing system.

The main problem with cuneiform is its' reliance on one kind of writing surface. And the fact it starts going out of use circa 9th century BC and keeping it any longer is just putting it on life-support.


EDIT: I forgot to mention that we do have a more widespread documentation of informal hierogluph use than we do for cuneiform - graffiti and such. This may indicate a wider literacy in Ancient Egypt - not impossible - but more likely a generally better environment in Egypt for conservation of documentary evidence (drier climate and more durable matierials). I would point out that hieroglyph, while clearly difficult to learn, did not carry two different and often foreign languages to be at least partly acquired with them just to master the system - which was largely the case for later cuneiform, esp. in the last century, when the scribes' own native language was not Akkadian anymore

That's some very good points!
 
The main problem with cuneiform is its' reliance on one kind of writing surface. And the fact it starts going out of use circa 9th century BC and keeping it any longer is just putting it on life-support.
Nevertheless, the last cuneiform texts known to us are from mid-first century AD - and two previously unwritten languages, Urartean and Old Persian, took cuneiform for writing respectively (probably) during and after the ninth century -although you're right that's when the script began its very, very long retreat in Mesopotamia, under pressure from Aramaic and its easier alphabetic script.
Cuneiform was always tied to power structures interested in maintaining it - the temple and palaces it was born within and never really managed to fully leave.
In a sense, you could say it never could have existed without this sort of "life-support", despite the fact that at least in Mesopotamia proper, but probably not elsewhere, literacy was often not limited to temple and palace milieus.

EDIT: you are right about the writing surface problem. I do not think it is unsurmontable, but it is a serious hindrance to further development.
 

fi11222

Banned
The main problem with cuneiform is its' reliance on one kind of writing surface. And the fact it starts going out of use circa 9th century BC and keeping it any longer is just putting it on life-support.
I do not agree. Cuneiform was not "tied" to clay tablets any more than early Chinese characters were tied to bone. It so happens that writing on clay seemed like the best/cheapest (much cheaper than papyrus) method for a very long time. No other writing medium was used on a large scale for cuneiform because cuneiform was already going out of fashion before better material (like vellum) became sufficiently cheap to displace clay.

Cuneiform ideograms are, just as modern Chinese Characters, a series of strokes. I am sure that a modestly able Chinese calligrapher would be able to draw easily recognizable cuneiform characters with ink and a brush in a very short time. It is precisely an innovation like this which might save Cuneiform and thus prevent alphabetical writing from being displacing them.
 
I do not agree. Cuneiform was not "tied" to clay tablets any more than early Chinese characters were tied to bone. It so happens that writing on clay seemed like the best/cheapest (much cheaper than papyrus) method for a very long time. No other writing medium was used on a large scale for cuneiform because cuneiform was already going out of fashion before better material (like vellum) became sufficiently cheap to displace clay.

The very fact that cuneiform is cuneiform (Lat. "wedge shaped") means it's 3D, and you can't have 3D characters on any other medium than clay (and maaaybe stone).

The fact that cuneiform's evolutions, Old Persian cuneiform and Hittite cuneiform, did not use papyrus or some other medium points to the fact that it's tied to clay tablets.

Of course you could have an ideographic language evolve from cuneiform and be suited to writing on 2D surfaces, but then it wouldn't be cuneiform, it'd be as close to it as Latin is to Phoenician script.
 
The very fact that cuneiform is cuneiform (Lat. "wedge shaped") means it's 3D, and you can't have 3D characters on any other medium than clay (and maaaybe stone).

The fact that cuneiform's evolutions, Old Persian cuneiform and Hittite cuneiform, did not use papyrus or some other medium points to the fact that it's tied to clay tablets.

Of course you could have an ideographic language evolve from cuneiform and be suited to writing on 2D surfaces, but then it wouldn't be cuneiform, it'd be as close to it as Latin is to Phoenician script.

Um, all you need to do is to replicate the shape of the wedges onto a different writing medium. A stylus dipped in ink could do it, or some kind of stamp. Admittedly, doing it like this would lead to cuneiform changing into a more flowing system like Chinese characters eventually, but that would take a while to mutate.
 
1) no. As others have pointed out, Hieroglyphs in their pure form were supplanted in Egypt itself by other, derived forms of writing.
2) no. logographic writing works far, far better for Tibeto=Sinitic languages that aren't inflected. Indo-European and Semitic languages have too many declensions and conjugations and such for any logographic system to work. Even Japanese, which borrowed Chinese culture and writing pretty much whole had to invent an alternate system (hiragana, katakana) to supplement it enough for it to be practical.
3) no. Egypt never developed the cultural and political dominance to impose on others or cause others to adopt their culture and writing system.
 
Syllabaries have not died out. Only one alphabet has been created that was not directly derived from Sinitic, and that was Hangul
At least two syllabaries have been created, the Cherokee and the Cree, also used by some Innuit. If it had not been for the former $20 bill person, the Cherokee could be much more used now
 
Syllabaries have not died out. Only one alphabet has been created that was not directly derived from Sinitic, and that was Hangul
At least two syllabaries have been created, the Cherokee and the Cree, also used by some Innuit. If it had not been for the former $20 bill person, the Cherokee could be much more used now
Lets not get too carried away; Cherokee might be used more without the Trail of Tears, but it's still the case that anyone wanting to get ahead would learn English; you'd have a situation like Irish Gaelic today, where it's an official language and there are serious efforts by the government to support it, but in practice almost everyone uses English for day-to-day tasks outside a very few areas.
 
Syllabaries have not died out. Only one alphabet has been created that was not directly derived from Sinitic, and that was Hangul
At least two syllabaries have been created, the Cherokee and the Cree, also used by some Innuit. If it had not been for the former $20 bill person, the Cherokee could be much more used now

There are also syllabaries like Vai, used in West Africa. And katakana and hiragana, of course.
Alphasyllabaries are even more common (Ethiopia, several Indian scripts derived from Brahmi).
There a case to be made for syllabic writing being generally the most intuitive, since it keeps reappearing historically, evolving from either logographic/morphemic scripts or abjads, or being invented independently (in the case of Cherokee, although with European inspiration).
Actually, most logographic scripts should be considered logosyllabic (including some stages of Chinese and cuneiform), and several alphabets are actually alphasyllabaries (note that both Hangul and Romanized Vietnamese use alphabetic writing to form graphically distinct syllabic blocks, as many Indian systems do).
 
1) no. As others have pointed out, Hieroglyphs in their pure form were supplanted in Egypt itself by other, derived forms of writing.
2) no. logographic writing works far, far better for Tibeto=Sinitic languages that aren't inflected. Indo-European and Semitic languages have too many declensions and conjugations and such for any logographic system to work. Even Japanese, which borrowed Chinese culture and writing pretty much whole had to invent an alternate system (hiragana, katakana) to supplement it enough for it to be practical.
3) no. Egypt never developed the cultural and political dominance to impose on others or cause others to adopt their culture and writing system.

1. True, but how much was because of the influence of the Semitic alphabet and especially in later eras the Phoenician and Greek alphabet? From my knowledge of Japanese, how different is that from the process which hiragana evolved? It seems like the main difference is that there already was a competing script to be used (the Semitic alphabets) compared to in East Asia where there as nothing to really do but alter Chinese characters and reappropriate them for certain purposes.
2. Exactly what I was going for. English or any other Indo-European language is not impossible to read using some hieroglyphics (or cuneiform as speculation here is) derived system. And there's always the potential for using a kana-like system to represent the endings and such.
3. Perhaps it could've been different? I have no clue how.

Syllabaries have not died out. Only one alphabet has been created that was not directly derived from Sinitic, and that was Hangul
At least two syllabaries have been created, the Cherokee and the Cree, also used by some Innuit. If it had not been for the former $20 bill person, the Cherokee could be much more used now

I've seen a theory that Hangul was inspired by Indian alphabets. I don't know how true that is, but I'd classify Hangul as a very logical script as syllabaries tend to be.

Cherokee doesn't really have a future, since as long as Europeans dominate them their language can't really end up being used much more than now. The Cherokee alphabet might even be a barrier to some degree.

There are also syllabaries like Vai, used in West Africa. And katakana and hiragana, of course.
Alphasyllabaries are even more common (Ethiopia, several Indian scripts derived from Brahmi).
There a case to be made for syllabic writing being generally the most intuitive, since it keeps reappearing historically, evolving from either logographic/morphemic scripts or abjads, or being invented independently (in the case of Cherokee, although with European inspiration).
Actually, most logographic scripts should be considered logosyllabic (including some stages of Chinese and cuneiform), and several alphabets are actually alphasyllabaries (note that both Hangul and Romanized Vietnamese use alphabetic writing to form graphically distinct syllabic blocks, as many Indian systems do).

Vai seems like it came from Cherokee, based on observations like Cherokee freedmen moving to Liberia and inspiring the Vai people. Not technically original, but still an innovation based on an innovation.

Syllabic writing is definitely the most sensical, based on my own experience in how easy I found Aboriginal syllabics to learn. It's simple logic, basically.
 
Vai seems like it came from Cherokee, based on observations like Cherokee freedmen moving to Liberia and inspiring the Vai people. Not technically original, but still an innovation based on an innovation.

Syllabic writing is definitely the most sensical, based on my own experience in how easy I found Aboriginal syllabics to learn. It's simple logic, basically.

Depends a lot on how it works relative the actual phonetics of the language. Hiragana and Katakana are almost perfect fits - Linear B is not. Alphasyllabaries are even more striaghtforward, I would guess- although only the Ethiopian and (some) Indian variants really develop the principle well- and both appear to evolve, as it could be expected, from abjads* (Meroitic and Iberian both work differently and are less logical, as far as I remember and understand them - they also derive fron consonantal scripts too). The problem with syllabaries is that they tend to need further signs for closed syllables - and an alphabet becomes then more economical, and relatively logically following (after all, if a single vowel can be a syllable, and you need standalone consonatal signs for syllabic codas, your syllabary already includes an alphabet) although historically nobody ever appears to have made that step (hieroglyphic was primarily consonantal, not syllabic, from the outset).

* The origins of the Brahmi script are problematic - I gather that most non-Indian scholars believe in a Aramaic source, but this has problems - just less so than the competing idea, dear to some circles in India, of an Harappan origin. In both cases direct evidence is simply lacking: we have to little to offer hard conclusions, I understand. I personally think that the off chance of South Arabian origin, that is sometimes floated, may deserve more attention, but I am not wedded to that notion, that has problems itself.
 
Top