suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:
> > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > But the Japanese child doesn't have the option the Tamil child does, of
> > > > internalizing the fact that all the consonants and all the vowels are
> > > > written separately and (well, except /u/) similarly.
> > >
> > > And this is why a special name is wanted for the syllabically organised
> > > scripts where the option of further analysis is available.
> >
> > Something other than abugida?
> >
> > What is an "option"?
>
> I don't have an immediate suggestion. However, let's start with this
> question.

Richard can speak for himself.

> What does syllabary mean? Can these scripts in question be included
> under a broad definition of syllabary or not. That is, hasn't the
> definition of a syllabary been recently and perhaps unnecessarily
> restricted? I think that there are different kinds of syllabaries
> but I still want the similarities which syllabaries share to be made
> transparent.

It has recently been clarified and necessarily restricted.

Or do you want to continue to call whales fish?

> Let's explore the various meanings and uses of the term syllabary
> first. Then decide if syllabary is only a core or pure (unanalysable)
> syllabary or not.

If you're going to continue to insist on calling the Indic scripts
"syllabaries," I won't discuss them with you.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...