Marco Cimarosti wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > But, then, is it still an abjad if it has matres lectionis?
> >
> > It's moving away from abjadicity.
>
> Fine. But, then, why is an abjad called "abjad", i.e. with the traditional
> name of a writing system, Arabic, which has moved away so much from
> abjadicity?

Because it sounded better than "abgad"? and already existed?

> Wouldn't it be clearer to call an abjad just "Phoenician", standing that
> Phoenician is the only example of a real abjad?

Can't you imagine the confusion that would cause?!?!? "Gregg shorthand
is a Korean." I don't think so!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...