--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "John H. Jenkins" <jenkins@...> wrote:
> ©ó Jul 14, 2004 7:06 PM ®É¡Asuzmccarth ´£¨ì¡G
> > Considering how Cree is coded and used, the Unicode manual might
> > leave out the term abugida for Cree.
> Forgive me, but where does Unicode use the term abugida for Cree?
> just checked and couldn't find it

I know that it does not. However, I was concerned that if there
*were to be* for some reason an attempt to make terminology more
consistent across script groups then someone could *suggest* that
calling Cree a abugida-like script would regularize the use of this
term. I am happy to know that this is not likely to happen. I
apologize if I have said too much in this regard.

> Meanwhile, I agree here with Prof. Daniels: Technical terminology
> intended for scholars shouldn't have to make obvious sense to the
> average man on the street.

I don't think of myself as the *average man* :)

> You're persistently assuming that (a) the *coding* practice of the
> Unicode standard should reflect linguistic theory,

Not at all, I understand now the independance between coding and

(b) that both
> the Unicode standard and linguistic theory should make sense to the
> average "man in the street." Neither assumption is correct.

However, there should be some consistency or rationale in the use of

Suzanne McCarthy