Michael Everson scripsit:

> Daniels is right. [Old Persian is] a syllabary with some alphabetic elements, not
> an abugida per se.

But KA alone is read /ka/, KA+I is read /ki/, and /ku/ is written using the
distinct KU. Furthermore, many consonants appear only in ?A form. I admit
it's a borderline case.

[on rongorongo:]

> It can't be *proved* that it's writing.

Agreed.

> Why logosyllabary? Why not syllabary?

Because there are about 800 distinct glyphs. If it's a syllabary, it has
a most extraordinary degree of glyphic variation, particularly considering
the small number of possible syllables in a Polynesian language, just 100
for modern Rapanui.

--
"Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan
could understand this report. Run out jcowan@...
and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it." http://www.reutershealth.com
--Rufus T. Firefy on government reports