Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>
> * Michael Everson
> |
> | Pollard seems alphabetic to me.
>
> * Peter T. Daniels
> |
> | Only if Modern Aramaic (Nestorian) is called an alphabet pure and
> | simple; the tone thing might cast it into another type entirely
>
> What do you mean by this? That if we ignore how tones are written the
> script is an alphabet, but if we do consider the tones it has to be
> considered to belong to some other type? Or something else entirely?

It occurred to me that the notating of tone at all is so unusual in the
world's scripts (and by and large confined to Southeast Asia?), maybe it
deserves special mention in a typology of scripts.

Remember, NO COMPUTER MENTALITY HERE. Typologies are for clarifying
conceptualizations, not for pigeonholing.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...