Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>
> suzmccarth wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > wrote:
> > > Ah. It's a reinterpretation of the entire corpus according to a new
> > > theory that's at odds with everything else known about Indian
> > epigraphy!
> > > We could see what Richard Salomon says about TB
> >
> > TB ?????
>
> See the paragraph you snipped.
>
> > in *Indian Epigraphy*
> > > (Oxford, 1997), and we can wait for reviews of this book.
> >
> > Mahadevan has stayed on the safe side concerning the Indus Valley
> > script, saying that he has not made any progress there. I assume that
> > much of what is said in this article, (see link) is established - the
> > absence of the pulli, then pulli used as vowel lengthener, only 8
> > vowels instead of 12, etc, However, the lack of inherent short medial
> > vowel is new, is that correct?
>
> Not credible.

Salomon accepts the Mahadevan interpretation but notes that it was an
aberration and was abandoned after the period dealt with in the new
edition of Old Tamil inscriptions. He notes one other area where the
abugida seems to have turned into an alphabet (where the plain akshara
represents C only).
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...