--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth" <suzmccarth@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > It is much easier to think about Syllabics in general, if you

think

> > of them as basically reflections first, and realize that they
> > only 'look like' rotations because some of the shapes are

symmetric.

>
> I find it easier to rotate and then flip vertically than to

reflect in

> a diagonal axis. This may simply be because it is easier to

reflect

> about an approximate axis of symmetry.

Or flip sideways and then flip vertically.

>
> > People really want to use their writing systems according to

their

> > own personal style. You are trying to think about the

reflections

> > too logically!
>
> I was trying to work out if Syllabics 'vowels' would have yielded
> general transformation operations if Syllabics had been encoded

that

> way. (That would have forced an encoding as an abugida.)

I would say that they are not thought of as abugidas by the users.
Each set stands independent - there are few 'principles' or
systematic relations. They did not evolve as a primary voweless set
and then the consonants with vowels. They were a basic set of
syllabics, and then the voweless forms came much, much later.

So the different vowels are never thought of as being represented by
a certain direction or vector. They are simply not decomposable in
that way. You can decompose them if you like, but they were not
intended to be decomposed.

Suzanne

This is not

> so for Cree vowels and is doubtful for Carrier vowels. It would

work

> for Blackfoot vowels, provided that the vowelless forms were not

taken

> as basic (in which case '=' would have to be added as

a 'syllabic'!)

> and they weren't identified with the Cree vowels with corresponding
> shapes.
>
> Richard.
>