On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Arjuna Rao Chavala <[email protected]> wrote: > Syllabic is very generic word in linguistics. It is better to stick to indic > or modify it with suffix like + (indic+) to indicate the support.
I'm sorry but I disagree. This is not linguistics. This is scripts, which while related to linguistics, is not necessarily bound by the rules of linguistics. And the whole point of the query from Behdad was to have a more generic name than "indic". So I recommend to stick to "syllabic". Or if you want: "abugida", which is *the* recognized term for this kind of scripts. And note that the other name for abugida is alphasyllabary, which again comes back to syllabic. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abugida -- Shriramana Sharma _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
