Peter_Constable@... wrote:

>
> >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.

You will see from my previous message that I have understood where all
this mishigoss is coming from.

It's a typology, not a classification.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...