The Fidel is not a true syllabary, it is a syllabic alphabet.
Yup. That's what an abugida is.
The Old Georgian (Asomtavruli) is strikingly similar in style to the Ethiopic Fidel
What do you mean by "similar in style"?
in fact, it is realistically more like a syllabic alphabet than a true alphabet.
How so? Individual characters do not represent syllables. This would be a particularly bad way of representing Georgian, as words can contain up to six-element consonant clusters, even word-initially (Ritter 2006). So I'd like to know what you mean by this.
I had read about these connections in an obscure but recent Afro-Asiatic linguistic journal article.
Do you have a citation for this article? I'd like to look it up and read it myself, if possible.
The author was connecting the similarities in the past (around the 400-900s) when the first Georgian alphabet was evolving. This author, and several others he quoted and which I have also read elsewhere, suggested that both the Georgian and the Ethiopic stem from a common root ancestor script which originated in the Arabian peninsula (because the Yemeni scripts are also very similar).
The Ethiopic/Ge'ez system developed from the South Arabian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Arabian_alphabet
I have never read anything that suggests that the Georgian developed from the same in any meaningful or direct way, as others have proposed regarding Georgian's relation to Armenian.
Another article I recall asserted that Georgian is not related to Armenian. In regards to Afro-Asiatic languages, things are changing all the time, the historiography is in flux. People used to say Semitic languages originated in Arabia, and were imported into Africa. Now, it is common to say that Semitic spoken languages evolved in East Africa, migrated into Arabia where they found an alphabet and then came back into Ethiopia as a written script. Some other authors have suggested that the scripts adopted by Semitic speakers actually first originated in the Caucuses regions.
Citations, links, anything...? It is uncontroversial to assert that, as concerns the Ethiopian Semites at least, Semitic speakers moved into East Africa sometime BC (I've heard everything from first to fourth century), mixing with preexisting Cushites. This is supported linguistically by exploring the rather obvious Cushitic substratum in the Ethio-Semitic languages, as you will find discussed in even basic texts on Historical Linguistics (in Trask's introductory text, for instance). It is, I suppose, a thing that people say, but not nearly just something people used to say
, as it has not been discredited.
I definitely agree with the Latin American similarities to the Oriental art, having been a born and raised Angelino I have a cultural affinity for such, and I feel it has always helped in making me more comfortable in Ethiopian and Coptic churches and communities. They are very similar, both culturally and artistically. I feel at home in both
Yup. I can relate to that, despite not being an Angelino in the slightest.