> From: Peter T. Daniels [mailto:grammatim@...]


> > It's a little strange to me that one would classify writing systems

such

> > that the basic category of a system changes like this, adding

optional

> > diacritics. I mean, yes, you can define anything you like, but such

an

> > unstable system starts to lose its usefulness. Whatever Hebrew is,

it

> > makes more sense to classify it the same whether or not it's

pointed.

>
> It certainly does not. Why would the points have been invented, yet

kept

> optional?
>
> What would your reason for proposing a classification be?

I would propose that categories be defined in terms of prototypical
examples, not a set of intensional criteria applied in binary-logic
fashion. Thus, Hebrew is considered an abjad because that's the overall
best fit, and if a text happens to have vowel points, then it's simply
not the best available example of why we classified the script as an
abjad.

Intensional definitions that correspond to extensional sets work great
for formal semantics. When it comes to describing the real world,
however, a different approach is needed more often than not.


Peter Constable