Re: How about a typology for input methods

suzmccarth scripsit:

> Yes, one of life's little mysteries. How did an abugida get treated
> like a syllabary? Maybe there is some reason for this, some
> important and relevant reason for this.

I don't know the full answer. The original proposal for Ethiopic encoded
it as an abugida, so the answer isn't ignorance, but what the reason
actually was, I don't know.

Canadian Syllabics can be viewed as either a syllabary or an abugida;
in Unicode it is encoded as a syllabary.

> I have to say that the inherent vowel is not a problem for computer
> input but the non-linearity and reshaping are really a problem when
> it comes to keyboarding a script. Somehow this non-linearity has to
> be dealt with - it cannot be ignored. It has to be considered as a
> feature of the script that is an issue for input. Input of abstract
> phonemic units manipulated mentally is not going to work.

It's just based on audible rather than visual ordering.

--
We call nothing profound jcowan@...
that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan
--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com