RE: VMs: Has anyone been down this route before?

["Brian Tawney" <btawney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> In linguistic jargon, <i> and <c> (and <e>) are allographs of the same
grapheme.

That makes sense.  The Arabic and Manchu scripts work the same way.  That
could significantly decrease the graphemic inventory of the script...is
there a table all of the apparent allographs anywhere?  I want to re-do some
of my statistical analysis taking this into account.

Of course, graphemic inventory doesn't necessarily correspond to phonemic
inventory.  The Classical Mongol script was pretty ambiguous, with the same
letter representing different phonemes.  In Manchu they took the Mongol
script and added dots and circles to disambiguate it.  Likewise in Arabic
they added not only the the shadda, the sukun and the vowel markers, but
also (according to my Arabic professor in college) the dots above and below
the other similar consonants like ba, ta and tha to disambiguate it.

>>Shukraan.

>Bingo! You know at least some Arabic.

Ambula baniha.  Bi geli manju gisun be gisureme bahanambi :)

Brian Tawney



______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list