Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>
>>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Why?
>
>

Because it's still the same writing system, I think. With or without
the vowel-points, it's still read the same way. Does a BET somehow mean
something different if it's pointed vs the *same* word unpointed?

>>Such a classification system seems to me unstable. (That's just
>>
>>
>
>Is "stability" a criterion for classifications?
>
>

No, like I said, classification is arbitrary. Usefulness would be a
good criterion, and usefulness, of course, depends on what you're using
it for. For uses I personally see, stability would be desirable in a
classification. You may have other uses in mind.

>>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?
>
>

See above. It's still the same thing. And it depends on what the
"treatment" in question is. If it's a matter of processing, then yes,
it would be very helpful to maintain stability. Maybe not in other
situations.

>>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
>>
>>
>
>And ALWAYS WERE optional. They were devised for use only in a certain
>kind of non-sacred study text (and, of course, are never used in sacred
>scrolls themselves).
>
>

OK, then. I was only trying to answer your question, though I'm not
sure what it has to do with the case. The points were invented, and
kept optional. I agree with you, but I don't see how this makes them
crucial to changing it from an abjad to an alphabet, or anything related
to that.

>>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).
>>
>>
>
>I seem not to have scrolled down far enough to see it.
>
>Obviously, Yes!
>
>

I ask your question back at you: Why? What's the big deal about an
inherent vowel?

>There's an immense difference, and of course the Ethiopic vowels don't
>have full-letter forms.
>
>

So it's even closer to the Hebrew model. (I spoke of devanagari because
I'm more familiar with it than with Ethiopic).

~mark