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

[but more useful would be the identity of the writer of the first
paragraph below]

> > > 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.

Which is just what I said the last time this came up, no?

> 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 T. Daniels grammatim@...