> From: suzmccarth [mailto:suzmccarth@...]


> The core of the discussion, in my eyes, is whether syllabaries and
> abugidas belong in two different primary categories. I noticed that
> you had put them together. I was having difficulty with the
> inconsistent definitions for these two terms. This inconsistency has
> now been recognized. What do you think about these terms now? Two
> types [or] two sub-types?

It matters little to me whether someone considers these types or
sub-types. My point (back in Nov. 2001) was to identify the structural
criteria I considered relevant for defining the classes:

- in some scripts, the (prototypically atomic) symbols correspond to
phones / phonemes, and there is no graphical structure corresponding to
other units of phonological structure

- in some scripts, the symbols correspond to syllables; apart from
modifications to the symbols (on the order of strokes), there are no
other graphical structures corresponding to other units of phonological
structure

- in some scripts, the symbols correspond (prototypically) to phonemes,
but there are also graphical structures that correspond (prototypically)
to phonological syllables

- in some scripts (notably Chinese), the graphical units correspond to
units of meaning, or can be analyzed into two graphic components
representing a semantic value and a syllabic value


The second of these groups encompasses syllabaries and abugidas. If
several people consider this basis for classification useful and also
consider it useful to recognize that second group as a whole as a
salient class of scripts, then I'm sure a conventional term will get
used and then potentially "abugida" and "syllabary" might end up being
considered "sub-types" rather than "types". If any of those things
doesn't occur, however, I wouldn't expect it to become convention that
these are considered "sub-types" rather than "types".



Peter Constable