From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 613
Date: 2001-11-12
>It's barely understood.
> * 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 messI was remembering the superscripts in the table. They indicate that some
>
> 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 supposedlyPunic is just late Phoenician
> | 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 GarsholThey're not "rules."
> |
> | 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,I don't think the psycholinguists have looked much into the matter ...
> 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 GarsholThen the typology as-is serves its purpose, and you don't need something
> |
> | [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 GarsholAvestan letters come from a number of sources. Oktor Skjaervo had never
> |
> | 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 useAvestan and Buryat, of course, are made with full knowledge of the Greek
> 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.)