suzmccarth wrote:
> --- In, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > What children do isn't
> > of much interest in script typology (though it may be quite revelatory
> > about the psycholinguistics of writing).
> Psycholinguistics also needs a typology of scripts.
> > It is NOT a description of what
> > is encoded by a script; it is a description of HOW a script does its
> > encoding.
> Then there could also be a typology for those who wish to know what
> is encoded by a script.

And that's what we put up with for at least 105 years (from Taylor's
first edition until my presentations in Princeton, Chicago, and
Milwaukee -- first published in JAOS in 1990).

> > There is a HUGE difference between having 50-100 different
> > characters, each for a separate syllable with no similarity between the
> > characters for similar-sounding syllables, and having 20-30 different
> > characters, each of which takes on a handful of (up to a dozen)
> > modifications, with similar character-bases and similar modifications
> > reflecting phonetic similarity.
> Cree slips in or out of your definition of an abugida every single
> time you post.

You are truly the mistress of the non sequitur.

I have said more than once that Cree isn't really a candidate for this
typology at all, because it's a "sophisticated grammatogeny" -- the
result of familiarity with phonological theory (such as it was in those
days, scil. phonetics) and a range of script possibilities.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...