From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
Subject: Re: Devanagari: Syllabary or Alphabet?
Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 09:14:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.071936.18672@midway.uchicago.edu>, bon6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
<In article <1992Apr13.063234.7830@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne) writes:
[_simile_]
<
<Let me put it this way: As a personal eccentricity, I might
<choose to spell my name "RahUl."  In doing this, I have
<violated an English spelling convention by using an in-
<appropriate situational variant of the graph <u>, but I
<have not tampered with the essentially alphabetic nature
<of the English writing system.  But if when I write my name
<in Hindi I use the syllabic graph <u> instead of the <u>-
<component of the syllable <hu>, I am doing essential violence
<to the Devanagari script.

Yes, you are.  You would be doing violence to the Roman script if you wrote
thus:

	Rahl
	  u

<>So what?  If we take the letter as the basic unit, then the order of
<>reading Devana^gari^ is a bit different.  So?
<
<Much different.  Remember that vowel signs may occur on all sides
<of a consonant sign.

No.  Certain vowel signs occur in certain places.

[About the writing of the vowel [@] in Hindi and Sanskrit:]
<>The lack of any other vowel-letter indicates the presence of this
<>vowel-letter (which, as it happens, is written with no ink).
<
<Huh?

What's wrong with that?  All vowels but [@] are written with a non-null
grapheme (or graphiteless grapheme, as David Pesetsky put it :-)).  In
Sanskrit, the null vowel is written with a non-graphiteless grapheme.

<>In any case, there is absolutely nothing wrong with regarding
<>Devana^gari^ as either an alphabet or a syllabary.
<
<This is quite different from your original statement: "Devana^gari^
<is an alphabet, period."

It's true.  The statement "Devana^gari^ is a syllabary, period" is also
true.

<What I propose is that Devanagari is neither an alphabet nor a 
<syllabary, but a combination of elements of both systems.

Few scripts (if any) can be characterised as wholly alphabetic.

<And
<further, that the relevant portion of the taxonomy of writing 
<systems be expanded beyond a simple dichotomy between alphabet
<and syllabary in order to facilitate the description of the
<South Asian scripts (among others).

Fine.

<>I'm wondering if you think that English uses an alphabet.
<
<I do.  Read left to right.  No invisible graphs.

If those are the only qualifications for alphabet status, then the Chinese
script qualifies.

[About the Devana^gari^ letter _e_:]
<>No.  The top stroke is the same; it just has a little extra baggage
<>down below.
<
<Now I see the source of your error.  You are confusing the graphs
<<e> and <ai>.

No, I'm not, I'm just not paying attention.  :-)

<<e> has no top stroke.

Correct.

<How well do you know
<Devanagari?

As well as you do, I'm sure.

<I have presented evidence
<for the recognition of a syllabic unit in Devanagari.  How
<do you respond?

I've already recognised your "syllabic unit" several times.  Are *you*
paying attention?

<Further, this is supposed to be a technical
<discussion.  Please do not use such an inexact term as "letter."

Which term would you prefer?  In any case, I'll have you know that `syllable'
is by no means exact.

					--Scott

-- 
Scott Horne                               ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu      SnailMail:  Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT   06520
203 436-1848                Residence:  Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT
Shao2shan1 sheng1 de tai4yang2 yong3 bu2 luo4!