At 22:03 +0200 2002-07-14, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Michael Everson
>| Try to consider the WWS as descriptive rather than prescriptive.
>
>I do. In fact, the definition of abugida I use is already different
>from that of WWS[1].

To what end? Try to consider the text in WWS as descriptions rather
than definitions.

>I was first trying to find out what the principle behind the Pahawh
>Hmong script was (the RPA romanization confused me quite a bit at
>first), and once that was clear, to see if people felt it fit into
>the existing typology or not.

It seems to be a kind of abugida. An ?AbUgIdA as opposed to an
?aBuGiDa, if that helps show something.

>The answer seems to be that Daniels thinks it is one-of-a-kind, but
>sufficiently close to the existing abugida type that there's no need
>to worry.

Worry about what?
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com