* 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.

* 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?

* 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

--Lars M.