--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> If you are going to propose a classification, you should explain
> why your classification would be useful, or more useful than any
> existing classification.

Useful for different purposes. Children with reading difficulties
have similar problems when readig simlar scripts. The traditional
input methods for Tamil and Chinese were both based on visual
composition of a syllable. Phonetic input methods across some
syllabic acripts can be similar. Syllabic scripts need an IME. There
is high predictability from one script to another for many purposes.

>I invented the word, so I can use it however I want. And I
> happen not to want it to be used for Cree.

Thank goodness. However, what about those of us who do want to say
that Cree, Tamil and Ethiopic share a certain something? They also
share something with Japanese and Cherokee.

> > It also recognizes the equally phonological character of alphabets
> > and syllabic scripts, while enabling one to differentiate
> > phonographic and logographic syllabic scripts. It may even allow

for

> > an understanding that an alphabetic script can provide a quasi-
> > logographic spelling type.
>
> Why would that be a useful thing to allow for?

Because it allows for observations on the way some Chinese people
tranfer literacy skills to English.

Suzanne McCarthy