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

>
> > 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?
>
> thats ... something I'll have to bring up with him when next we meet.
> At the level of writing, I can see how one may have this perception of
> the forth form syllables where the first leg is written shorter and
> then the next relatively longer but still in the "normal" length (as
> per forms 1,2,3,5). But in the 7th form the perception should
> reverse. Hand writing can vary widely though, but no, I can't imagine
> anyone at the time of writing thinks they are cutting off anything. I
> was thinking in terms of glyphs its a "negative appendage" or
> "negative diacritic" in some sense as it is not additive to the glyph.

(But that _was_ what you meant by "amputation"?)

> The notion of a "leg" implies a degree of anthropomorphizing the
> syllabary (let me call it that for now). The syllabary, viewed as a
> collection of biological entities then, could we reexamine the
> syllabary vs abugida question to determine which is more applicable?

"Leg" is hardly "anthropomorphizing" -- it must be one of the deadest
metaphors there is!

> > > 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.
>
> Take the kaf syllables* for instance, they adhere perfectly to
> generalized rules one might devise for indicating the syllablic forms
> (what one could mistake for diacrictical marks). My notion was a
> statistical approach where if X percentage of other syllables applied
> the same rules, then the script could qualify as an abugida.

This is a formal question; my scheme is functional.

> What would interest me would be survey of native writers where a
> series of questions are asked to determine a consensus perception of
> the writing system. Does the average user perceive what they are
> writing as a diacritical mark or an inate part of a syllable? Do they
> think they are lengthening legs or shortening them? etc.

Does the average person think they are speaking prose?

> There should be a series of questions we could device to determine if
> users perceive their writing system as an abugida or syllabary. Up to
> the challenge? I'm willing to work on it if you are :-)

Do people perceive X as a femur or a thigh-bone? How is it relevant?

> /Daniel
>
> *What are elements of an abugida known as?

letters? aksharas?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...