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

>
> Ok, you're going completely beyond the bounds of what you had

claimed to be talking about. First of all, there was a major script
reform for Thai in (IIRC) 1253 CE, which effectively decoupled it from
its Indic forebears.

> Next, Lanna and Lao are offshoots of this, not direct descendants of

Brahmi, so there's even less reason to suppose they should resemble
Brahmi.

I don't think the Lanna script is an offshoot of this, though there's
been a lot of mutual influences between scripts. For example, Lanna
has all the extra consonants and vowels that Thai has. I'll accept
Lao as an offshoot, but note that Lao as encoded in Unicode still has
two subscript consonants. Note that the Northern Thai writing system
using the Lanna script does form aksharas that conflict with syllble
boundaries, though they are primarily (solely?) used for words of
Indic origin.

> As for Khmer, even less is available to know, but I haven't seen

anything suggesting the existence of a "CVC" akshara.

Look at some of the compound vowels if you refuse to look at the
Unicode standard.

> If Lanna has a syllable-boundary-marker, it doesn't have Indic-style

aksharas at all!

It doesn't have syllable-boundary markers, at least in normal styles,
unless you reckon that Devanagari also has them.

> Just as Tibetan has syllable-markers and doesn't form the same sort

of akshara. Ditto for Tamil, which marks not syllables but vowelless
consonants individually.

You're coming close to denying that Burmese has Indic-style askharas!

Richard.