suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- 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

Nu, who called it an abugida in the first place? Maybe if Unicode had
actually put in a definition for the word, they would have noticed that
it doesn't particularly fit Cree.

> scripts and Ethiopic as the two main entries for abugida. Since

As they always have been.

> Ethiopic looks more like Cree than like Indic scripts, to the

In what way does Ethiopic "look like" Cree? In particular, in what way
does it look more like Cree than like Indic scripts?

> 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.

Why would they be looking at it in the first place? It's for computer
folk.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...