Michael Everson scripsit:

> This is very interesting. I have noticed that one Wikipedia
> contributor insists that Canadian Syllabics are an abugida because
> "rotation" is like a diacritic; or rather, because the base forms are
> present in all of the vowel positions. I don't think this is
> particularly convincing, myself.

From my viewpoint as an anti-essentialist (see
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/essentialist.html , which is by no means
merely a joke), I don't think the question "Is X an abiguda?" very
interesting, or even well-defined. For me, the question is "Is it
worthwhile considering X as an abugida for purpose Y?"

> >but the fact of its invention by someone familiar with phonetic
> >science puts it outside the realm of the classification.
> Why would that be a necessary proscription?

Peter qua deviser of the classification is perfectly entitled to
exclude products of sophisticated grammatogeny from his purview.
And the rest of us are perfectly entitled to accept or ignore
this stricture.

> Would Tengwar be "outside the realm of classification"? I don't think
> so. (Depending on the mode, it is either an abjad or an alphabet.)

In (the extension of) Peter's classification, it's always an alphabet,
sometimes a point-based one like Yiddish, sometimes a plene-style one
like Greek. Those for whom other definitions are more useful
for their own purposes will of course make different choices.
For me, for example, Tengwar in tehtar (point) modes remains an abjad
even though the points are mandatory.

Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield], John Cowan
one who looks with unconcern on a man http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
struggling for life in the water, and when http://www.reutershealth.com
he has reached ground encumbers him with help? cowan@...
--Samuel Johnson