From: bon6@quads.uchicago.edu (rahul  bonner)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Devanagari: Syllabary or Alphabet?
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:19:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr14.071936.18672
Reply-To: bon6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr13.063234.7830@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne) writes:
>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.

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.  Spellings such as "RahUl" are
possible in English (I believe they are currently in
vogue in California), but an altering such as I have described
above of the written form of my name in Hindi would be un-
readable.

By the way, what does phonetics have to do with it?  We are
talking about a writing system.

><>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?

Much different.  Remember that vowel signs may occur on all sides
of a consonant sign.

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

Huh?

><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.

Don't be coy.  Either state your case or be silent.

>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."

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

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

I do.  Read left to right.  No invisible graphs.

><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.

Now I see the source of your error.  You are confusing the graphs
<e> and <ai>.  <e> has no top stroke.  How well do you know
Devanagari?  You really must be more careful if this discussion
is to be meaningful.

><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.

For your argument to be persuasive, you must do more than simply
declare by fiat what is relevant or not.  I have presented evidence
for the recognition of a syllabic unit in Devanagari.  How
do you respond?  Further, this is supposed to be a technical
discussion.  Please do not use such an inexact term as "letter."

I have a simple rule for predicting the spacing of vertical
writing in Devanagari: one syllabic graph below the other.
Can you formulate such a rule?

>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

Not thousands of syllabic graphs, rather hundreds.  The method is
called _baarah kharii_.  Look at a children's Hindi textbook.

                                              -- Rahul
Newsgroups: sci.lang