Nik Taylor wrote:
>Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > Eg, if you had a syllable /tuts/, would that necessarily be written
> > or could there be a unitary syllabographeme TUTS?
>Nope.  The characters are all either CV, CLV, CRV, C, or V, possibly
>written in hangul-style blocks.
> > If alphasyllabary has an accepted, if counterintuitive, meaning then you
> > probably shouldn't be using it of Tivets writing. What about "syllabet"?
>That could work.  Or perhaps something like "Semi-syllabry"

Since it then seems that Tivets graphemes represent segments or sequences of
segments, and only accidentally entire syllables (as do Latin letters), it
doens't really have that much syllabary character. It's reminicent of things
like Latin |x| denoting a sequence of phonemes. But then it's descended from
a true syllabary.

I guess I like "semi-syllabary" best to describe it. "Syllabet", should,
IMHO, if anything denote a system were signs typically are EITHER alphabetic
or syllabic.


STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*