Marco Cimarosti wrote:

> (And, BTW, I am starting to think that terms such "abjad" or "abugida" are
> causing a bigger mess than they were suppose to clarify. I am wondering
> whether it wouldn't be simpler and *safer* to go back and call "alphabets"
> all those things now called abjads and abugidas. You can always add later on
> that, however, alphabet "Tom" handles its vowels in such and such way, which
> is different to what happens with both alphabet "Dick" and alphabet
> "Harry".)

Please read my articles in JAOS and Lingua Posnaniensis for accounts of
the insights achieved by recognizing that abjads aren't alphabets and
abugidas aren't syllabaries. Isn't that the reason for proposing
"theories"? They explain facts that previously weren't seen to be
related.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...