suzmccarth wrote:

> I think ... that Tamil should be thought of as a syllabary for some
> purposes at least because
>
> 1. there is persistent and enduring use of a syllable table
> 2. there is no abstract analysis of consonants without inherent
> vowels (very different than teaching reading with an alphabet)
> 3. the primary structral unit is considered by native speakers to be
> the akshara (not consonants and vowels)
> 4. there is constant visual shape only at the syllable level
> 5. there is syllabic editing
> 6. there is a syllabic IME
>
> So I think that an abugida must somehow for some purposes fall
> within the greater category of syllabic writing systems

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

If you don't understand the difference, and aren't willing to read what
I have written about it, then just forget you ever heard the word.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...