* Peter T. Daniels
| 1 Armenian, 2 Asomtavruli, 3 Avestan, 4 Buryat, 5 Carian, 6 Cirth, 7 Coptic
| script, 8 Cyrillic, 9 Deseret, 10 Etruscan script, 11 Georgian script,
| 12 Geyinzi, 13 Glagolithic, 14 Gothic script, 15 Greek, 16 Hangul, 17 Latin script,
| 18 Lycian, 19 Lydian, 20 Manchu, 21 Mandaic script, 22 Meroitic, 23 Modern syriac,
| 24 Mongolian clear script, 25 Mongolian script, 26 N'ko, 27 Nusxa-xucuri, 28 Ogham,
| 29 Old Persian Cuneiform, 30 Orkhon, 31 Osmanya, 32 Punic script, 33 Runic,
| 34 Shavian, 35 Sidetic, 36 Tai Lue script, 37 Thaana, 38 Utopian.
| I put in the number to save typing.

Very good.

| Not alphabets: 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32

Then obviously I need to refine my understanding of what separates an
abjad from an alphabet. (Thank you very much for the corrections. I
have applied them now, though they won't be visible for a day or two.)

Are all of 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 32 abjads? (Just checking.)

| Never heard of: 6, 12, 26, 27, 36

6: Tolkien's other script; the first was Tengwar. Rune-like alphabet.
<URL: http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/cirth.html >
12: Script invented by the guy who made the Omniglot website.
<URL: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/geyinzi.htm >
26: Page 593 of WWS.
27: Another name for Khutsuri.
36: Page 282 of WWS.

| No idea: 9, 38

Deseret is a phonetic alphabet. Utopian is obviously an alphabet, as a
quick glance at

<URL: http://www.adh.brighton.ac.uk/schoolofdesign/MA.COURSE/05/LL47.html >

should show.

| Doubtful: 34 (featural); 23 and 37 (both the same; would Bill call them
| alphasyllabaries?)

Is the reason you don't consider 23 and 37 alphabets that the vowels
are given "lower status" as characters in the script than consonant
characters? To me, a non-expert, it does not look like the scripts are
syllable-based, but would you say they are? If not, does it not make
sense to classify them as alphabets?

* Lars Marius Garshol
| It is. On page 512 of WWS is the statement "Mandaic ortography has
| usually been regarded as alphabetic". I see nothing on that page, or
| elsewhere, to contradict that.

* Peter T. Daniels
| But the whole paragraph is a refutation of the traditional view!

I believe it when you say so, but even now I am unable to understand
that by reading it. The description still sounds like the description
of an alphabet to me. Why do you consider it an abjad? Is it because
it only writes some of the vowels, and not all?

| But -- what's the point of all this "classifying"?

I have a web site about scripts. I believe it is useful to present to
the reader a set of script types, and a classification of the scripts
using those types. To be able to do so, however, I need a system that

Another reason is that I am trying to learn more about scripts and how
they work, and I am having a hard time understanding how to apply the
definitions of the different script types. It seems that the line
between alphabet and abjad, for example, is fairly subtle, and since
nobody, to my knowledge, has made an authoritative list of the
classifications of various scripts, I am reduced to finding the
correct answers by asking people who know.

--Lars M.