Peter_Constable@... wrote:
> On 11/12/2001 06:06:31 AM "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >As I said in the first message with the above header, a typology in
> >linguistics -- as pioneered by Greenberg -- is not an exhaustive
> >"classification" and cannot be used as such.
> True, but you did not respond to the point I was making, which is that his
> types are based on *synchronic* properties of languages and have nothing
> whatsoever to do with their historical derivation. Why should it not be
> reasonable to similarly be interested in *synchronic* comparison of
> scripts based on properties without regard to the historical derivation of
> those scripts? Please speak to that point.

I, and Michael, have already said that I don't see any reason to. It's
not interesting. You, and Lars, have been asked for reasons why it would
be interesting.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...