Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>
>>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Perhaps a flaw in some instances, in others merely a choice of
>>emphasis. It may not matter in the deep underlying reaches of the mind
>>what people *think* they're doing, but that doesn't make it completely
>>unimportant to determine whether people think they're processing along
>>"syllabary" or "abugida" lines. At least, not completely unimportant to
>>everyone. It might be so to you; Daniel apparently has a different opinion.
>>
>>
>
>He didn't suggest investigating whether people think they're using an
>abugida or a syllabary; he suggested investigating whether thay are
>using an abugida or a syllabary mode.
>
>Since in his WWS article Getatchew Haile gives the traditional account
>of how to write the script, including instructions for adding each of
>the vowel markers to the basic shape, it would seem that the traditional
>analysis, which is what people would think they were doing, is abugidic
>and not syllabic.
>
>

Excellent! So you've helped Daniel find his answer.

~mark