Patrick Chew wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Presumably your Lao is like vocalized Hebrew/Arabic/Syriac -- or better,
> > Yiddish, where the "vocalizations" are not optional and are in fact
> > separate letters?
>
> Actually, no.
>
> Modern ("reformed") Lao, especially, is basically an alphabet.
> Unlike Thai, which has an "inherent vowel" when no "vocalization" is
> overt (in an open-syllable, it's [O] "open-o"; in a closed-syllable it's
> [o]), Modern Lao has vowels all overtly spelled out.
> In older, traditional Lao, syllable breaks are sometimes ambiguous due
> to Pali-Sanskrit tradition orthography. Presence or absence of a vowel
> glyph is not optional, AFAICR.

That's what I said. An alphabet, like vocalized Hebrew/Arabic/Syriac. If
the vowel independent-aksharas are used for vowels, then it's like
Yiddish (or English). If the vowel appendages are used, then it's like
vocalized Hebrew etc.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...