Richard Wordingham wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:
> > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > > > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > A. 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?
> >
> > Do you have some reason to suppose he's changed his definition? If so,
> > he hasn't told me about it (and after the Sejong article, he said he was
> > tired of the whole matter and wouldn't deal with it any more).
>
> Only this exchange:
>
> Richard:
> 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.
>
> Peter Daniels:
> And, if you look at Bill's context, for him too.
>
> If 'for him too' is with reference to alphasyllabaries, then the
> requirement to be an abugida is a change from definition (A) yielding
> 'Bright-2'. I invented 'Bright-2' in this thread. If he doesn't
> require alphasyllabaries to be abugidas, we can forget about 'Bright-2'.

He thought that the two terms were alternatives, and then we discovered
that his doesn't cover hPags pa, which showed that it was not only
etymologically unsuitable, but it also didn't have the same semantic
range.

> > > 3) Bright-2 alphasyllabary - both a Bright-1 alphasyllabary and an
> > > abugida.
>
> > > 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'?
>
> > He says it's not an alphasyllabary because the vowel signs are separate
> > letters and not appendages. But the consonant symbols are still /Ca/.
>
> If we don't require alphasyllabaries to be abugidas, then I think
> Korean qualifies. Every syllable character begins with a consonant
> symbol, and the vowel may be to its right or below it, thus
> subordinating the vowel to the consonant.

??

How is the V any more "subordinate" to the C than the C is to the V?
Neither can occur without the other. You could even say the V is more
important because it demands an empty consonant symbol if it's
syllable-initial.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...