> 1. Indian languqages have a bigger alphabet set but not a whole lot of
> punctuation chatarters ( , . ' ! ; : - ? being those characters).
>
> 2. English has a smaller char/alphabet set but has a lot of punctuation
> characters( ~ 3rd of the alphabet set).
IMHO, this relation doesn't hold good. The punctuation does depend more
on the length of a sentence, usage of grammar and its construction
rather than on the no. of alphabets of a language. It has nothing to do
with the vocabulary or no. of alphabets. Correct me if I am wrong.
> 3. that Telugu in the olden days had 'poetry' and spoken Telugu but not
> much of 'vavhanam'/'prose' which would probably needs punctuation unlike
> poetry(spoken languqage being already punctuated by the speaker).
pATalu which may not fall under poetry category, but are more close to
prose, were equally prevalent those days. Also what about vachana
kavitvamu (e.g. ranganAtha rAmayaNamu)?
Regards
Krishna Kandadai