--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> 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.

I think I can do that in general. I could restrict my use of the
term to Ethiopian, would that be appropriate? Now I am wondering
if Paslm 119 is the same number in the Septuagint as in English. I
had a Septuaint once but I think I have misplaced it.

Does anyone know if Evans, of the Cree script, was familiar with the
Ethiopian script or Brahmic scripts?

Suzanne

> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...