Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>
> * 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.)

22 can be interpreted variously; one claim is that it's an abugida.

29 is a mess

30 is partly syllabic

Why do you separate Punic from the rest of Phoenician? It supposedly
started using matres, Aramaic-like, in contrast to earlier Phoenician
(but I've never studied any Punic)

> | 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 >

never heard of it ...

> 26: Page 593 of WWS.
> 27: Another name for Khutsuri.
> 36: Page 282 of WWS.

wrong ref.; that's 35

> | 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?

I don't need to "classify" them, since how they work is clear: clearly
they're different from alphabets -- they're compulsorily vocalized
abjads!

> * 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?

Well, of course!!!!

> | 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
> works.

You still don't answer Michael's and my question: WHY is it useful?

> 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.

But there's exactly one example of each, and the transition is perfectly
clear:

Phoenician >>> Greek.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...