--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> suzmccarth wrote:

> > but I still want the similarities which syllabaries share to be
> > transparent.
> It has recently been clarified and necessarily restricted.

Could you elaborate on this? Many writers are content to qualify a
syllabary and say something like a 'pure' syllabary or a 'core'
syllabary. What is this clarification you refer to?

How is it essential to an understanding of writing systems, etc. and
Why is the definition necessarily restricted rather than qualified?

(When I ask this question I do not want to give the impression that
I think these systems are all alike - you know I have used them
enough to understand how they work - only that I would chose to
classify them in a somewhat different fashion.)

Since I have looked at and enjoyed your book, WWS, I would very much
appreciate if you would share here what you have written in articles
rather than refering to them obliquely.

> Or do you want to continue to call whales fish?

Writing systems are a product of human culture. If I take a beer
barrel and use it as a planter, it is a planter. If I take a wagon
wheel and remodel it as a table, it is a table.

<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>A herring is
> closer to a whale than to a shark! It's also quite appropriate
> hydrodynamically.

in some funtional way.

> Should we just say 'syllabically organised' until we're sure what
> into the relevant category.

Yes, for now,