From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 4875
Date: 2005-04-24
>Do you have some reason to suppose he's changed his definition? If so,
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:
> > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > > A. According to Kuipers (
> > >
> http://home.gwu.edu/~kuipers/kuipers%20insular%20seasia%20scripts.pdf ):
> > >
> > > The Indic scripts of Insular Southeast Asia are similar to what
> > > Bright calls an alphasyllabary. He defines these as scripts in
> > > which "each consonant-vowel sequence is a unit, called an aksara,
> > > [and] in which the vowel symbol functions as an obligatory
> > > diacritic to the consonant" (Bright 1996).
> >
> > Yes, that's Bright's definition of "alphasyllabary."
>
> Is or was?
> > > B. Richard Sproat ( http://compling.ai.uiuc.edu/rws/newindex/indic.pdfHe says it's not an alphasyllabary because the vowel signs are separate
> > > )interprets this as, 'They are alphasyllabic scripts (Bright, 1996a)
> > > (though Daniels (1996) prefers the term abugida), meaning that they
> > > are basically segmental in that almost all segments are represented in
> > > the script, yet the fundamental organizing principle of the script is
> > > the (orthographic) syllable'.
> >
> > Sproat has overlooked the distinction between "alphasyllabary" (formal)
> > and "abugida" (functional). Perhaps this is based on the faulty
> > "definition" of the latter that was found in the Unicode literature.
>
> > > Have I missed something in these quotes? Neither (A) nor (B) requires
> > > an implicit/inherent vowel, which Peter Daniels sees as an essential
> > > feature of an abugida.
> >
> > And, if you look at Bill's context, for him too. When we moved out of
> > India, to, say, hPags pa, it became clear that his definition was
> > deficient.
>
> > The sole defining feature of an abugida is the inherent vowel. Bill
> > chose to make the defining feature of an alphasyllabary the use of
> > "diacritics" rather than full letters for denoting vowels. Functional
> > vs. formal.
>
> There seem to be three concepts floating around:
>
> 1) Bright-1 alphasyllabary (Definition A above).
> 2) (Daniels) abugida
> 3) Bright-2 alphasyllabary - both a Bright-1 alphasyllabary and an
> abugida.
>
> Lao is a Bright-1 alphasyllabary, but not an abugida. I can't think
> of an abugida that is not an alphasyllabary.
>
> What's the issue with hPags-Pa? Is it that independent and dependent
> vowels have the same symbol? (I'm assuming that the apparently
> optional horizontal bar at the top of the vowel symbols is not a
> distinguishing feature - perhaps it is!) Are the syllable-final
> consonants an issue? Is it or is it not a 'Bright-2 alphasyllabary'?