Re: How about a typology for input methods

suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > suzmccarth wrote:
>
> > By Punjabi you presumably mean the Gurmukhi script, which does an
> > interesting thing with its vowel notation, bringing it some distance
> > from the Brahmi paradigm.
>
> Yes, Gurmukhi. I also want to assure Michael that I am not trying to
> *equate* Gurmukhi and Ethiopic. However, I uderstand that Peter has
> classified them both as abugidas. I am just wondering what this
> comparison is based on.

(Do you begin, Michael, to understand my frustration?)

BECAUSE THE BASIC SYMBOL REPRESENTS THE CONSONANT PLUS UNMARKED VOWEL
(USUALLY /a/) AND THE OTHER VOWELS ARE INDICATED BY ADDITIONS. or
APPENDAGES. or, if you must, MODIFICATIONS.

> > I don't know whether Sikh children are taught with grids of
> > syllables or not.
>
> Somehow I duobt it. I was taught to decode Punjabi without one. I
> hope to be working with a teacher of Punjabi in September.

And Michael had exactly the opposite reaction.

> The internet has many, many examples of the Tamil syllable chart but
> I can't find one for Punjabi.
>
> Once again, I believe that another typology of scripts for
> psycholinguistics is needed.

And this is not a non sequitur because ...?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...