Richard Wordingham wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth" <suzmccarth@...> wrote:
>
> > The important thing is to recognize that there is a similarity
> > between these systems. In fact, once the CV units have been
> arranged
> > together the unit can become more opaque over time. An abjad or
> > alphabet cannot become more opaque because they are intrinsically
> > segmental. An Indic script can since it has a syllabic unit.
>
> A pure abjad may have this immunity. One with matres lectionis does
> not. Think of Arabic lam-alif!
>
> Are we overlooking another type of phonemically organised script, the
> pointed abjad? At a general level, an abugida seems simply to be an
> abjad with the optimisation that one particular vowel (originally the
> commonest, obviously) is not marked.

A pointed abjad is an alphabet. (Unless you want to follow Bright's
_formal_ criterion that the smallness of the vowel markers is what's
really important -- then I suppose it's an alphasyllabary.)

> Perhaps the critical thing about the most abugidas is that the vowel
> marks' positions are usually scattered about the consonant. How does
> the set of positions affect the cognitive processes?

No, the thing about all abugidas is the inherent vowel.

The positioning of the marks is a historical accident.

> I'm not sure that general Indic scripts are vulnerable to becoming
> syllabaries. Tamil has the ability because it has abandoned
> conjuncts and discarded about 70% of the orginal consonants.

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...