If you want to make claims about Tamil script having a scientific basis, please take that up with Korean experts who make the same claim of their script, and then let us know when you come to some agreement.
Peter
From: indic-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:indic-bounce_at_unicode.org] On Behalf Of Sinnathurai Srivas
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 3:19 PM
To: maxwell
Cc: Indic Discussion List; Unicode Mailing List; UnicoRe Mailing List; Michael Everson; gbinfitt_at_yahoogroups.com; wg02infitt
Subject: [indic] Re: Tamil Anusvara (U+0B82) glyph shape [ Re: Dot position in Gurmukhi character U+0A33]
Phoneme is tied to straight jacketed Alphabet as sound.
So the Western thoughts does not apply to
all sounds generateable represented by Alphabet as poA.
You could still agree to the existence of numerous vowel sounds represented by structured PoAs.
The linguists are wrong with classical and scientific , most importantly authentic Tamil as they misunderstood when spreading the alphabet. All gone wrong with that wrong interpretation.
Go back to scientific origins and we will understand.
+
Allophone definitions do not match with theory of PoA as alphabet.
Because alphabet do not represent sound/phoneme, there is no pphenomenon such as allophone. Because Alphabet is PoA, the definition phoneme as used by linlinguist not valid. we need to introduce tamTamilfinitions.
It may be an idea to gradually introduce TAMIL VOCABULARY, to clearly identify?
Then again Matra and Matrai which are both in use contradicts too.
--- On Thu, 9/2/12, maxwell <maxwell_at_umiacs.umd.edu<mailto:maxwell_at_umiacs.umd.edu>> wrote:
From: maxwell <maxwell_at_umiacs.umd.edu<mailto:maxwell_at_umiacs.umd.edu>>
Subject: [indic] Re: Tamil Anusvara (U+0B82) glyph shape [ Re: Dot position in Gurmukhi character U+0A33]
To: "Sinnathurai Srivas" <sisrivas_at_yahoo.com<mailto:sisrivas_at_yahoo.com>>
Cc: "Indic Discussion List" <indic_at_unicode.org<mailto:indic_at_unicode.org>>, "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode_at_unicode.org<mailto:unicode_at_unicode.org>>, "UnicoRe Mailing List" <unicore_at_unicode.org<mailto:unicore_at_unicode.org>>, "Michael Everson" <everson_at_evertype.com<mailto:everson_at_evertype.com>>, gbinfitt_at_yahoogroups.com<mailto:gbinfitt_at_yahoogroups.com>, "wg02infitt" <wg02infitt_at_yahoogroups.com<mailto:wg02infitt_at_yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Thursday, 9 February, 2012, 22:55
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:35:58 -0800 (PST), Sinnathurai Srivas
<sisrivas_at_yahoo.com</mc/compose?to=sisrivas_at_yahoo.com>> wrote:
> I had this discussion with many of the western theorists.
I'm one of those theorists.
> take it that by phonemes I mean different sounds.
That is *not* the linguistic definition of "phoneme." In particular,
allophones are also different (i.e. distinct) sounds. So you're counting
allophones in Tamil, and trying to compare that number with the number of
phonemes in other languages. Although in fact I suspect there are
languages with more vowel phonemes than Tamil has vowel allophones.
But in any case, there are certainly languages with more vowel phonemes
than Tamil has vowel phonemes, as well as languages with more vowel
allophones than Tamil has vowel allophones.
Same with consonant phonemes, for which the record holder is said to be
Ubyx, with 81, or maybe ǃXóõ, which may have substantially more consonant
phonemes, depending on the analysis.
Mike Maxwell
Received on Fri Feb 10 2012 - 01:39:26 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Feb 10 2012 - 01:39:27 CST