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

> > now generally accepted that an akshara is a syllable. So this is
> > the feature that defines the script type for its users.
> >
> > The akshara connotes wholeness I believe. Since the syllable can
> > pronounced, it can be matched up to the visible syllable.
> An akshara comprises all the C's in up to a CCCCCV sequence, and all
> those C's are not part of the same syllable.

While this is true for Sanskrit, how true is it of the vocabulary
that has not been (re-)introduced from Sanskrit? In Pali for
example, the only medial clusters different to initial clusters that
I can think of in un-Sanskritised Pali are the geminates and those of
the form NC. The latter can be simplified by using niggahita (=
anusvara). I think I read that geminated were degeminated in Middle
Indic, so how bad is the mismatch in ordinary words in modern
languages? The orthographic practice of using word-internal virama
(sometimes 'implicit') is quite widespread - in the SEASite
introduction to the Burmese script, for example, aksharas crossing
phonetic syllable boundaries are seen as an optional(?) feature of
the spelling of loanwords.

Some languages do frequently write intervocalic -CC- in a single
akshara, e.g. Khmer.

Am I correct in thinking that Brahmi originally did not show