> > Perhaps we should restart the discussion from here: do you, prof.

Daniels,

> > confirm or withdraw clause W.2 above? If you withdraw it, do you

think that

> > clause W.1 alone is enough to define an abugida, or would you add

substitute

> > old W.2 with something new?
>
> Just remove the word "diacritics" and replace it with "appendages"

or

> "modifications." ("Modifications" would presumably let Cree in.)

I rather like this adjustment, I think it presents an important
distinction. Except that "appendages" are at times amputations. I
think a systematic change of shape to denote the impregnated vowel is
implied. Is it safe to call an Abugida a "systematic syllabary" and
impose a minimum 70% (or so) systematic criteria?