Re: How about a typology for input methods

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>
>>John Cowan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Peter T. Daniels scripsit:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>So Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac are not abjads?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Unvocalized, they are. Add the points, and they're alphabets.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Most modern Arabic and Hebrew texts, however, are neither fully pointed
>>>nor fully unpointed: rather, they are strategically pointed with matres
>>>lectionis.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Even worse, they are strategically pointed with occasional actual
>>vowel-points and not matres. That is, you'll often see a word with a
>>single letter vowel-pointed, for the simple reason that it could be
>>misunderstood, even with all the possible matres in place.
>>
>>It's a little strange to me that one would classify writing systems such
>>that the basic category of a system changes like this, adding optional
>>diacritics. I mean, yes, you can define anything you like, but such an
>>unstable system starts to lose its usefulness. Whatever Hebrew is, it
>>makes more sense to classify it the same whether or not it's pointed.
>>
>>
>
>It certainly does not. Why would the points have been invented, yet kept
>optional?
>
>What would your reason for proposing a classification be?
>
>Mine was that it clarified Gelb's counterintuitive "Principle of
>Unidirectional Development" and then showed me the explanation for the
>origins of writing.
>
>

There isn't anything *wrong* with classifying things the way you say;
all classification is more or less arbitrary anyway. We group things in
ways that seem to be useful. To me, it does not seem useful to view
Hebrew as one kind of writing system when written without vowels, and as
a member of an entirely different top-level class when the vowels are
added. Such a classification system seems to me unstable. (That's just
me, and I don't have books on the subject in my name, but then again,
authoring books on a subject is neither a necessary nor a sufficient
condition for being right about it. Maybe other people here agree, and
maybe they don't.) If we think abjads should be treated one way and
alphabets another, then I would say that this form of classification,
which has the Hebrew writing system flip-flopping between them (and
sometimes occupying some strange middle ground) is unhelpful, as Hebrew
probably should be treated approximately the same way no matter how many
vowel-points are there.

Why would the vowels be invented, and kept optional? I could answer
that, and probably will eventually, but it doesn't even matter if I
couldn't. The facts on paper indicate that the vowels definitely WERE
invented, and definitely ARE optional (now). Was that a sensible thing
to do? I don't feel the need to defend it: it simply is the case, smart
or stupid.

>>Is the inherent vowel so crucial and novel a feature that it's worth
>>inventing an entire category for it? Apart from that, there isn't much
>>difference between a devanagari-style alphabet and a Hebrew-style one
>>(well, the fact that devanagari vowels also have full-letter forms, I
>>guess is the main one). And even in devanagari, lack of vowel or
>>consonant cluster isn't always indicated by virama or ligaturing, in
>>Hindi, anyway. (Since I only learned Sanskrit, where the inherent "a"
>>vowel is strictly observed, that always throws me when trying to sound
>>out Hindi, in which the inherent "a" is often--but not always--dropped,
>>from what I've heard).
>>
>>

Did you have something to say to this, or just missed deleting it in
your response? (I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, just making sure
you didn't miss out on saying something you had planned).

~mark