--- In
qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:
> suzmccarth wrote:
A typology which lumps these three together
> > as abugidas is not very intuitive to someone who uses these
scripts.
>
> For the gazillionth time, SO WHAT? The typology is not intended for
> users of the scripts, nor need they know about it.
Considering how Cree is coded and used, the Unicode manual might best
leave out the term abugida for Cree. However, that leaves Indic
scripts and Ethiopic as the two main entries for abugida. Since
Ethiopic looks more like Cree than like Indic scripts, to the
unitiated, and is coded more like Cree than like the Indic scripts,
it would be better if Unicode left the term abugida out altogether.
Then those of us who are only naive users would not be confused and
startled.
On the other hand users of scripts could be disallowed from reading
the Unicode manual.
Suzanne McCarthy