* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Are all of 20 (Manchu), 21 (Mandaic), 22 (Meroitic), 24 (Mongolian
| clear script), 25 (Mongolian), 29 (Old Persian Cuneiform), 30
| (Orkhon), and 32 (Punic) abjads? (Just checking.)

* Peter T. Daniels
|
| 22 can be interpreted variously; one claim is that it's an abugida.

OK. I'll leave it as unclassified for now then. Is the problem that
there isn't enough data, or just that it's a difficult typological
case?

| 29 is a mess

Looking at it again I see what you mean. :-) I don't know what made me
describe it as an alphabet, but I agree that it's neither an alphabet
nor an abjad.

| 30 is partly syllabic

I've missed something, then. The table on page 537 of WWS, and the
sample on 538 both seem entirely alphabetic to me. What are the
syllabic elements in it?

| 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)

Simply because WWS seemed to describe it that way. It is shown
separately in the diagram on p 89, and the two later references to it
(ps 112 and 141) do not in any way suggest that it's the same as
Phoenician. Is it really the same script?

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 12: Script invented by the guy who made the Omniglot website.
| <URL: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/geyinzi.htm >
|

* Peter T. Daniels
|
| never heard of it ...

Not so strange. I think he's probably the only person who's ever used
it, or even looked closely at it.

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 36 (Tai Lue): Page 282 of WWS.
|
| wrong ref.; that's 35

You are right. Tai Lue is the script Peter Constable posted about at
length. See <URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qalam/message/528 >.

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 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?

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

From the definition on p 4 of WWS I concluded that a compulsorily
vocalized abjad is an alphabet. There are also statements to that
effect in WWS (in the article on Syriac). If the rules given in WWS
are incomplete I've just learned something new.

What's the point of separating alphabets from abjads with vowels,
though? Aren't they in effect pretty much the same? Does it make much
difference for the relation between language and writing whether the
vowel characters have secondary status?

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| [mandaic]
|
| 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?

* Peter T. Daniels
|
| Well, of course!!!!

It's not that obvious to me. If an alphabet is writing with vowels and
consonants, and abjads are writing with only consonant, a writing
system with some vowels, but not all seems like a border-line case to
me. But given the rule that abjads are abjads even if they write the
vowels, but give the vowels lower status as characters, I see what you
mean.

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 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.

* Peter T. Daniels
|
| You still don't answer Michael's and my question: WHY is it useful?

There are many interpretations of this question, but I'll try my best.

It's useful because then I can write "the Phoenician script is an
abjad", or "'Phags pa is an abugida", and people who know nothing else
about the scripts suddenly have at least some idea of how they work.

It's also useful because I can present the different classes of
writing systems and having read that presentation the reader will have
gained a real understanding of the different kinds of scripts used
around the world.

Were these answers to the question you meant to ask?

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 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.

* Peter T. Daniels
|
| But there's exactly one example of each, and the transition is
| perfectly clear:
|
| Phoenician >>> Greek.

Perhaps.

This the transitions my topic map tells me exists:

Classical syriac    >>> Modern syriac   
Arabic script    >>> Thaana   
Phoenician script   >>> Greek   
Pahlavi >>> Avestan   
Mongolian clear script >>> Buryat   

The requirement of equal status for vowels in alphabets you use
removes the first two cases, and the third is the one we all know. You
did not disagree that Avestan and Buryat are alphabets, however, so it
seems like the two last cases should hold.

(BTW, I used the following query:

derived-from($A : predecessor, $B : successor),
direct-instance-of($A, abjad),
direct-instance-of($B, alphabet) ?

to produce this list.)

--Lars M.