Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | But shouldn't the classification be based on the properties of the
> | thing being classified? That's why syllabaries and abugidas must be
> | kept absolutely apart.
>
> I don't think anyone is advocating anything else, but at the same time
> it is clear that they have something in common, which is that the
> basic graphic units of both kinds of script denote syllables. This
> sets them apart from alphabets and abjads, where the units denote more
> basic phonetic units.

That's like putting birds, bees, and bats together because they all have
wings.

> * Peter Constable
> |
> | In any taxonomic system, a class with exactly one member is suspect.
>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | There's only one alphabet. Does that mean you don't have to bother
> | with a category for it?
>
> Do you dispute that single-member classes are inherently suspect?

Obviously not, since "alphabet" appears in my system.

> * Peter Constable
> |
> | When I decided to think about how to classify scripts using a
> | consistent basis, it struck me that Hangul and the term
> | "alphasyllabary" were a perfect match.
>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | Except that it's already in use with a different meaning.
>
> How can I find out what that meaning is? I've read the description in
> B&D and it did not help me.
>
> | I cover "alphasyllabary" in the footnote on p. 4.
>
> I'm afraid that footnote is too brief to help a non-expert like me.
> Can you elaborate on that statement, or point to examples?

> | The only place where the conceptual difference between "abugida" and
> | "alphasyllabary" is significant is in hPags pa.
>
> Does this mean that the members of these two classes are identical,
> except that 'Phags pa is a member of one, and not of the other? If so,
> which of the classes is it a member of, and why is it only a member of
> one?

It means that Bill's definition of "alphasyllabary" excludes hPags pa,
and my definition of "abugida" includes hPags pa. For me, it's
functional: the unmarked character includes the unmarked vowel. For
Bill, it's formal: the vowel indicators are physically different from
the consonant letters and can go anywhere, but hPags pa vowels are
barely distinguishable from consonants and only go after. (Clearly, my
definition is better. :-) )
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...