From: Chris Fynn
Message: 6802
Date: 2007-04-24
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@>...
> wrote:
> > Surely you don't consider Tibetan an Indic script, given theYes. Tibetan syllables are morphemes as every legal syllable in
> considerable change in orthographic principles?
> Are you referring to the splitting of aksharas into vowelless and
> vowelled aksharas, so that CCVC$CV ($ = syllable or even word
> division) may become C.CV.C'CV (. = akshara boundary, ' = tsheg)?
> The tsheg is similar to word separators, and they have arisen
> independently in many scripts. The splitting of aksharas at syllable
> boundaries is very common in non-Indo-European languages (e.g
> Dravidian languages), and is the norm for the spelling of monks' Pali
> names in Thai. (In Tibetan the syllable boundary is frequently a
> morpheme boundary, and it is argued that tsheg represents a morpheme
> boundary rather than a syllable boundary.)
> The splitting of an onset is somewhat unusual, but again it relatesIf Tibetan were purely phonetic it would be almost unreadable. Almost
> to the widespread principle of making spelling morpheme-based rather
> than purely phonetic. The consonants that might be prefixes are
> therefore written in a separate akshara. The writing system for
> Tibetan is kept slightly simpler by making this rule a spelling rule
> that is independent of the actual morphemic structure of the word.
> There may be a similar reason for one consonant per akhsara rule for
> the consonants following the vowel. For example, the past tense form
> _bsgrubs_ is written <b.sgru.b.s'>, compared to the corresponding
> present tense form _sgrub_ <sgru.b'>.
> I have no trouble considering Tibetan to be an Indic script.The term generally refers to scripts derived from Brahmi. In some
> However, I was asking what others understood by the term.
> Which specific features of Tibetan makes you say it is not Indic?
> Are you using roughly a point-scoring scheme? Do you count Tamil
> and Malayalam as Indic alphabets? Burmese?
> Richard.