From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 3158
Date: 2004-07-15
>What do you mean by "preclude"?
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Constable" <petercon@...> wrote:
>
> (there isn't any script for which neither
> > phonemes nor syllables are relevant),
>
> Why should there be? It should be either one or the other, or both.
> I am not sure I understood this comment.
>
> and it doesn't provide a unique
> > class for things like Korean and SignWriting, which was precisely
> what I
> > *was* trying to establish in Nov. 2001.
>
> Interesting. I don't want to preclude that but would like to hear
> more about it.
> > I don't know, but in the scheme I just outlined, Tamil could beFor the gazillionth time, SO WHAT? The typology is not intended for
> > considered an alphasyllabary, Ethiopic, an abugida, and Cree/Inuit
> > syllabics, a syllabary.
>
> This makes sense to me. A typology which lumps these three together
> as abugidas is not very intuitive to someone who uses these scripts.
> However, Tamil is not an alphasyllabary in the same way that KoreanMaybe Peter C. will tell us what he means by distinguishing
> is. (Is what you call Korean?)
> It is important to recognize, as you do, that they all have aWhy should the number of vowel symbols be interesting?
> syllabic primary structural unit.
>
> Another problem with calling Tamil an abugida is that Tamil has 12
> full vowel symbols. Is it in any way helpful to draw attention to
> some historic relationship between Tamil, with 12 full vowel symbols,
> and an abjad?
> In general, your typology communicates something uderstandable to me.--
> I would like to hear more about it later.