>Ok, so you reject the Daniels typology in toto. Yet you use my word
>"abjad"! Do explain the inconsistency.

My point is this: if we're classifying *families* of scripts, then the
family of scritpts that originated in Semitic writing of the ancient near
east include abjadic, abugidic and alphabetic scripts at least, and so
that *family* cannot be classified as being any one of these things -- it
spans them all.

This is an argument by contrapositive to make the case that the Daniels
typology cannot be intended to classify *families* of scripts since at
least one *family* of scripts does not fit into any one of its classes. It
can only make sense to classify individual scripts. And if that is the
case, then there are multiple alphabetic scripts to be classified.

So, no, I do not reject the Daniels typology in toto. What I reject is the
statement that among the objects that are classifed by that typology there
is only one alphabet.


- Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@...>