Richard Wordingham wrote:

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

No. An abugida has an inherent vowel in each unmarked syllable; an abjad
doesn't.

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

No, the pulli is _added_ to the akshara to denote absence of vowel.

> > _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.

"Alphasyllabary" has now fallen out of your lexicon! (Good.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...