áÐ3áS•áS¤áˆ* áЫáЕá‰Ýብ (Dan iel Yacob) wrote:

>
> > > 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

Getatchew Haile thinks of the shortening of a leg as lengthening of the
other leg. I can't think what else you might mean by amputation?

> 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?

No; it must be kept strictly separate from the syllabaries.

I don't know what "systematic criteria" are, or how you would measure
them.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...