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

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

wrote:

> > > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > >
> > > > This may be a stupid question, but do the inflectional

patterns of a

> > > > language affect the native speaker's ability to see an

alphasyllabary

> > > > as an abugida? In a Semitic language like Amharic the

inflected forms

> > > > should reveal the composition of the syllable symbols.

Unfortunately,

> > > > I know little of Tamil morphology and less of Vai.
> > >
> > > What contrast are you trying to make between alphasyllabary and
> > abugida?
> >
> > Whether the symbols for open syllables are seen as atomic or as
> > consonant sign plus vowel/silence sign. Not everyone will have

the

> > same perception.
>
> The former is a "syllabary," not an "alphasyllabary."

The abugida is a pointed abjad. Tamil is an abugida, though some
would probably claim that the 'a' vowel is marked by mere deletion of
the pulli.

> _No_ syllabary can be "seen as" an abugida, because the symbols are
> atomic.

The point is that in theory an abugida or abjad may be seen by some
users as a syllabary. Different people may see the same system in
different ways, and the theory gets really messy when some see the
system as, say, abugida plus suppletion, or when the writing system
drops some contrasts.

Richard.