Adinkra Symbols:

able to be defined as true writing because it is not rigidly codified. However, Adinkra are
not pictographs like Native American scripts and many more symbols are codified which
leaves room for it to be definable as real writing.
Ong places the writing systems of the Vai and Egyptians in intermediary stages
claiming that they are almost true scripts. Ong says that “in some coded systems the
writer can predict only approximately what the reader will read off, as in the system
developed by the Vai in Liberia or even in ancient Egyptians hieroglyphics” (85).
Therefore, Ong views these scripts as almost true because of their links to phonetics.
However there are at intermediary stages of the writing process because they are not as
truly phonetic as the alphabet system. Both share similarities with Adinkra; however, the
attributes they share are what makes the intermediary and not true systems of writing.
In the case of the Vai the visual symbols are not fully connected to sound,
therefore, they cannot be defined as a true writing system. Ong describes the Vai’s
language of Lieria as not having “a full one-to-one correspondence between the visual
symbols and the units of sound. The writing provides only a kind of map to the utterance
it registers, and it is very difficult to read, even for a skilled scribe” (88). Since the Vai
writing system does not link completely with speech, Ong prescribes it as not fully a true
writing form. However, some of the Vai’s writing system connections with speech allows
for it to be defined as almost a true script. Considering that all Adinkra symbols are not
connected to sound phonetically, it cannot be considered a true writing system or even an
intermediary writing system.
Ong and DeFrancis value Egyptian hieroglyphs because of its relationship to
phonetics. Ong describes the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic system as a hybrid of
26