From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 1554
Date: 2003-08-02
>It occurred to me that the notating of tone at all is so unusual in the
> * 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?