From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
Subject: Re: Devanagari: Syllabary or Alphabet?
Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 06:32:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.051025.430@midway.uchicago.edu>, bon6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
<In article <1992Apr13.012514.4510@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne) writes:
<>In article <1992Apr12.225857.21555@midway.uchicago.edu>, bon6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
<>
<>Devana^gari^ is an alphabet, period.  Each letter represents a sound.
<
<You are begging the question.  These "letters" you speak of are
<nothing of the sort, because they do not occur independently (more
<on this below).  They are components of complex syllabic graphs.

What do you mean, "occur independently"?  They're written differently
depending on phonetic context, but they occur independently.

<>The
<>fact that not all letters come in sequence is irrelevant,
<
<It is highly relevant.  If we take the syllable as the basic unit,
<then the order of reading Devanagari is simple: left to right.

So what?  If we take the letter as the basic unit, then the order of
reading Devana^gari^ is a bit different.  So?

<>as is the fact that
<>an inherent vowel (namely [@]) is not written.  (It is written as the "null
<>grapheme".  :-))
<
<You have destroyed your own position.

Not at all.

<Indeed, this is an inherent
<vowel, inherent to the syllabic graph.

The lack of any other vowel-letter indicates the presence of this
vowel-letter (which, as it happens, is written with no ink).

<And your smiley admits the
<ludicrousness of positing the existence of an invisible letter,
<something you are forced to do if you hold that Devanagari is an
<alphabet. 

I don't mind being forced to take that position.  But there are others I
could take.  In any case, there is absolutely nothing wrong with regarding
Devana^gari^ as either an alphabet or a syllabary.

I'm wondering if you think that English uses an alphabet.

<I have not claimed that Devanagari is
<a syllabary, only that the basic unit of representation is the 
<syllable.

Certainly.

<><But the <e>-component
<><of <ke> can not occur independently, unattached to a consonant
<><sign.
<>
<>Yes, it can.  It just has a slightly different form.
<
<You are wrong: the form is completely different.

No.  The top stroke is the same; it just has a little extra baggage
down below.

<Before you continue this argument, please consider this: when people
<write Devanagari vertically downward, as on a shop sign, where do
<they break the words, between your "letters" or my syllabic graphs?

Not relevant.  What they write are *letters*, not syllables.  You and I
both know why they don't break after each letter.

Consider this:  When someone learns to write Hindi, is he presented with
a chart of thousands of syllabic graphs to copy or a handful of letters?
(This is irrelevant, too, but not more so than your question.)

					--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!