Here we go again ...

John Cowan wrote:

>
> Abjads represent consonants with full letters, and use optional diacritics
> to represent vowels.

No, abjads represent consonants only. Viz., Phoenician.

> 1) If a script makes its vowels optional, but uses full letters for them, is
> it an abjad?

No.

E.g., Aramaic from the first example we have, and pre-Masoretic Hebrew,
have drifted away from abjadity.

> 2) If a script uses diacritic vowels, but requires them, is it an abjad?

No.

> Enquiring minds want to know.

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...