Marco Cimarosti scripsit:

> 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?

Time for a little trip to Emack and Bolio's, I think.

(And this answer applies with equal force to both "ideographic" and
"abjad" as terms of art. Scholars in literary criticism, I note,
do not hesitate to apply the term "heroic romance" to works written
in English, or for that matter in Chinese, despite the obvious
violation of the etymology.)

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

Something like "Phoenician-type" would work, certainly; we don't hesitate
to call the Western European (and American) style of kinship system

John Cowan <cowan@...>
Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.
-- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"