Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>suzmccarth wrote:
>>I would not want to see the term abugida used
>>first because it suggests an association with alphabets and abjads
>>that Cree does not have. Secondly, abugida can only refer to a
>>separate *primary* type, not a sub-type, and obscures the fact that
>"Can only"? I invented the word, so I can use it however I want. And I
>happen not to want it to be used for Cree.
True, but beware: you've used the word, and you've introduced it into
the world. Other people can (and will) use it in different senses,
rightly or wrongly. I know that serves only to increase confusion in
the field, but that's what happens in these situations. And if the
"mainstream" interpretation of the word (if any) eventually happens to
drift away from your intended meaning, well, there isn't much you can do
about it.

Not that this has happened yet. Just something to bear in mind: you may
have invented the word, but you don't have perpetual control over it.

(though this kind of discussion about the development of neologisms is
for another language-related mailing-list, I think)