suzmccarth wrote:

> > > Yes, I have read this. It is intuitive knowledge for anyone who
> > > knows about the religious origins of writing systems. But why call
> > > Indic scripts a type of an Ethiopic script, when one precedes the
> >
> > How's that? Who's done that?
>
> I was tring to avoid saying abugida again.

Who has called Indic scripts a type of an Ethiopic script?

If you must, then Indic scripts are "types of" several Aramaic scripts.

> > > other by several centuries. Or are we not supposed to know about
> > > the Ethiopic script and its origins. If I have to read the book to
> > > over ride every logical and intuitive idea that the term abugida
> > > brings to mind it is unhelpful.
> >
> > It is a LABEL. Should we not call the Korean alphabet an alphabet
> > because it doesn't derive from the Greek?
>
> At least it follows in chronology. I think a use like that has to
> develop over time. If there is a consensus among Koreans and others
> that has developed in an open forum to use the term alphabet then so
> be it. But one person can't put a LABEL on the whole Indian
> subcontinent.

Didn't you get the message from Seshat about snipping unnecessary
material?

One didn't label "the whole Indian subcontinent." One needed a label for
a type of writing system. Neither Urdu writing nor the roman alphabet
(used for Konkani) nor some of the Munda scripts are abugidas.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...