Available via license: CC BY-NC 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Variation in the Bugis/Makasarese script
... While each proposal has brought forth new partial correspondences, none has provided a cogent case for the putative origins. Current specialist consensus is that absent further discoveries, the similarities between the modern scripts and putative relatives are still too unclear for any convincing demonstration of their origins (de Casparis 1975, Noorduyn 1993, Cummings 2002, Kozok 1996. This paper presents evidence for a new theory that SSP scripts are descendants of an early variety of Gujarati script introduced into the archipelago, thus placing them in the Nagari group. ...
... Central to the argument for a relationship between BM and Ph/Gujarati variants are the placement of dots in BM letters and their relation to structural elements in corresponding Ph letters, and final rising swashes in certain letters. Noorduyn (1993) discusses an old variant of ‹a› with a single dot under the left arch rather than under the right arch as in standard ᨕ, which he attributed to individual scribal variation. However, several manuscripts illustrated in Tol (1996) show evidence for a left-dotted ‹a› and there is evidence from at least one manuscript (National Library of Indonesia No. VT 129, figure 231 in Tol 1996) that at some point a left-dotted ‹a› may have contrasted with a ‹y› bearing a single dot under its right arch (distinct from the standard ᨐ). ...
... No contrast with other letters hinges on the flourish; in fact, it is a final position variant of a plain up-angled stroke that follows an up-down stroke sequence. It is absent in some variants shown in Noorduyn (1993), in palm leaf script, and some early documents, and in the modern script never occurs on letters with a final upstroke preceded only by a downstroke. We may assume it is a later development and the earlier forms more closely approximate the original letter shapes. ...
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt:This paper presents evidence for a new theory that indigenous scripts of Sumatra, Sulawesi and the Philippines are descendants of an early variety of Gujarati script introduced into the archipelago, thus placing them in the Nagari group. This at first seems implausible, but the historical record attests to the major role of Gujaratis in the archipelago. Tomé Pires (Cortesão 1944) reports a thousand Gujaratis in Malacca prior to 1512, Barnes (2004) shows that Gujaratis sold printed cloths manufactured to the tastes of customers in Sulawesi and the Moluccas around this time, and Gujaratis are known to have played a major role in introducing Islam to the archipelago.
... The Karo Batak system, for example, has two additional characters for /mba/ and /nda/; Réncong (Rejang) (but not Lampung) have extra characters for /ngga/ and /nja/; while Bugis (but not Makasar) has four new characters for /ngka/, /mpa/, /nra/ and /nca/. According to Noorduyn, the Makasarese script "does not express consonant gemination, syllable final consonants, (nasals except some homorganic ones in Bugis and glottal stop) and (Bugis) final vowel lengthening" (Noorduyn 1993) None of the Philippine scripts have a nasalization feature. Because of this and other commonalities, Kozok (1999: 67) speculates that the scripts outside of Java and Bali all had a common origin, perhaps in Sumatra, then spreading to Sulawesi and then perhaps on to the Philippines. ...
... Hanunóo and Southern Sumatran manuscripts do not. As Noorduyn notes, "traditionally…there was never a space between words, as in any Indian-derived syllabary script" (Noorduyn 1993). This practice appears to be a recent innovation to make the script easier to decipher, particularly for learners. ...
... As elsewhere in Indonesia, these scripts are increasingly marginal, despite the efforts of the educational institutions to teach the script in elementary schools. As Noorduyn (1993) observes, there are textbooks produced for schools have made significant modifications, including word spacing, but the script is seldom used outside of ceremonial family occasions and antiquarian contexts. ...
In the opening lines of The World's Writing Systems Peter Daniels asserts that "humankind is defined by language; but civilization is defined by writing" (1996). Ironically, in insular Southeast Asia, if "civilization" is an idea that presupposes writing, it is also an idea that is responsible for marginalizing the Indic scripts in the region. Precisely because community rivalries in this culturally diverse region are often depicted in religious and civilizational terms, the scripts - as a visible and material emblem of such differences - suffer from a lack of prestige that threatens their survival. The Indic scripts in insular Southeast Asia bear connotations of another civilization associated locally with less prestigious kinds of development, progress, and spiritual practice. Currently, the Indic writing systems in this vast region are currently distinguished not only by their distinctive shapes, but by their peripheral social position in the communicative repertoires of nearly all Insular Southeast Asian communities. After a brief overview of some of the structural features of the scripts of insular southeast Asia, I wish to focus on the ways in which these scripts function among the people who use them. I will examine specifically a number of factors that have contributed to their current marginality in Insular Southeast Asia, as well as some of the factors that might guide their future. Structure of the Indic Scripts of Insular Southeast Asia Although the writing traditions in different parts of the insular Southeast Asia flourished under strikingly different social conditions - from traditional courts to isolated swidden farmers - by 1817, the similarities amongst the scripts had been noted by Raffles (1817) and three years later by Crawfurd (1820). By 1877 the scholar Holle was prepared to assert that these scripts were all
... Kaithi and Mahajani from Kellogg (1876) and Grierson (1881Grierson ( , 1903aGrierson ( , 1903b; Moḍi from Grierson (1905) and Hemadree font by Somesh Bartakke; Sourashtra reproduced from Hāḷivi (1880), Rāma Rāo (1902) and modern Suresh font by Suresh Thimma Ramdas. Philippine shapes from Archivo de la Universidad de Santo Tomas; Batak script from computer font by Ulrich Kozok and author's hand reproductions of certain variant shapes in Kozok (1996); South Sumatran shapes from Marsden (1834), Van der Tuuk (1868), and Westenenk (1922); Bugis from MPH 2B Damase font by Mark Williamson and author's hand drawings of older variant shapes illustrated in Noorduyn (1993) and Tol (2006Tol ( , 2008. Sourashtra reproduced from Hāḷivi (1880), Rāma Rāo (1902) and modern Suresh font by Suresh Thimma Ramdas; 14th-century Tamil from Burnell (1878); modern Devanagari, Tamil and Telugu from computer fonts. ...
Several scripts in northern and southern India, Indonesia and the Philippines developed from informal varieties of Devanagari restricted to intimate, shorthand-like uses by members of mercantile occupations. The mercantile varieties took a characteristic quasi-abjad form with postconsonantal vowels unspelt. This paper follows the development of these scripts, demonstrating how they gave rise to the new scripts in South India, Indonesia and the Philippines. The basic relationships between these scripts are demonstrated with cursory descriptions of their structural correspondences, followed by a discussion for each of the ways the orthographic system changed back to a more classic abugida as a result of borrowing from prestige contact scripts or innovations in the use of existing resources. In addition to these more typical phenomena, we describe some quirky spelling conventions in Sumatran, Sulawesi and Philippine scripts, tracing them to practices used to teach combinations of vowel and coda signs on consonant letters.
Sirtjo Koolhof, KITLV/ Royal Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies &
Robert Ross, Leiden University
Upas, September and the Bugis at the Cape of Good Hope. The context of a Slave's Letter
Quelque temps avant août 1760, au Cap, l'esclave bugis Upas adressa un court message à un de ses congénères, September, qui le conserva dans un coffre, dans le barraquement pour esclaves où il logeait. La lettre était rédigée dans la langue des deux hommes, le bugis, et dans l'écriture qui lui est propre. Ils n'auraient pu deviner que cet innocent message allait, en quelque sorte, se muer en sentence de mort pour le destinataire et qu'il serait encore l'objet de débats deux siècles plus tard. September fut accusé d'être à la tête d'un complot d'esclaves (bugis), et la lettre trouvée dans son coffre fut présentée comme une preuve accablante. La lettre elle-même, pourtant, ne suggère rien de semblable. Cet article présente les interprétations successives de la lettre et en propose une nouvelle traduction.
C.C. Macknight & LA. Caldwell
Les Bugis de Célèbes-Sud, de même que les Makassar et d'autres de leurs voisins, possèdent une tradition de l'écrit qui remonte aux environs de l'année 1300. Bien qu'apparentée à d'autres traditions lointainement dérivées, comme elles, d'un modèle indien, celle-ci s'en distingue par de nombreux détails, tant du point de vue de ses pratiques que de l'écriture utilisée ; par voie de conséquence, les méthodes philologiques qui ont été mises au point pour l'étude des manuscrits malais, javanais ou autres, ne peuvent pas être utilisées sans quelque esprit critique.
Notre intérêt pour les manuscrits Bugis et leur contenu nous a amenés à prendre en considération les différences existant entre les multiples versions manuscrites d'un même ouvrage. Nous donnons dans cet article la définition et des exemples de cinq niveaux de variation, liés aux particularités de l'écriture et du contexte culturel. Cette analyse met en lumière ce qu'est la pratique de l'écriture et son rôle dans le contexte bugis traditionnel. Il en résulte, pour la mise au point d'éditions imprimées modernes de telles œuvres, certaines implications, qui sont ici brièvement passées en revue.
Preface. Part I: Theoretical Perspectives:. 1. What Writing Is All About. 2. From Icon to Symbol: The General Trend of Evolution. 3. Units of Speech and Units of Writing. Part II: Writing Systems:. 4. Sacred Characters: The Theocratic Script of Egypt. 5. From Word to Syllable I: Cuneiform Writing. 6. An Alternative to the Alphabet: The Chinese Writing System. 7. From Word to Syllable II: Chinese Characters for other Languages. 8. Semitic Writing: Syllables or Consonants?. 9. The Alphabet. 10. Writing in India. Part III: Practical Problems:. 11. From Letter to Sound: Deciphering Written Languages. 12. From Sound to Letter: Creating Alphabets. 13. Writing Reform: Conditions and Implications. Part IV: Conclusion:. 14. What Writing Means for Linguistics. References. Appendix I: Ancient Near Eastern Chronology. Appendix II: Far Eastern Chronology. Index.
3) Les litteratures de Celebes-Sud sont restees jusqu'a aujourd' hui fort peu etudiees. Ch. Pelras (C.N.R.S., Paris) donne ici une premiere presentation d'ensemble de la litterature bugis, la moins mal connue a ce jour grâce aux travaux de Matthes, Kern, Cense et Noorduyn. Il existe une importante litterature ecrite, sous forme manuscrite, et une litterature orale toujours vivante dont on passe en revue rapidement les diverses formes. Puis est donne un apercu des principaux themes : mythes (tournant principalement autour du heros culturel Sawerigading), histoire, textes juridiques, sapientiaux, didactiques ou religieux, ou poesie lyrique.