áÐ3áS•áS¤áˆ* áЫáЕá‰Ýብ (Dan iel Yacob) wrote:
> > > Since "femur" and "thigh-bone" are synonymous, and "syllabary" and
> > > "abugida" aren't, how can this be anything but arrant nonsense?
> > >
> > > Do at least try to pay attention.
> >
> > Now you're doing it too? The point at hand is whether people need to be
> > concerned with technical terminology.
> The point I was after was not terminology, a native user will refer to
> the script by the name of their language in most cases and of course
> will be unaware and uninterested in these finer points. What I think
> would be interesting to uncover is what model (abugida vs syllabary)
> best matches a persons unconcious understanding of their writing system.
> Which in turn I thought a series of carefully crafted questions might
> be able to determine.

Hopefully no psychologist would try to test whether their subjects
followed "Model A" or "Model B"; that would exclude the possibility of
discovering whether they actually followed "Model C"!

This seems to be a flaw in the vast majority of psycholinguistics --
they investigate whether they can confirm or disconfirm some particular
proposal of formal linguistics, rather than trying the much harder task
of discovering how brains actually process language.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...