Michael Everson wrote:
>
> At 18:55 -0400 2004-08-01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > Abjad. A writing system in which only consonants are indicated. A
> > > well-known example is the Arabic writing system, though it is not a
> >> "pure" abjad because consonant letters like /w/ and /y/ are used to
> >> mark long vowels /o/ or /u/ or /i/. In some abjads, vowels can also
> >> be indicated by the use of secondary marks on the consonants. The
> >> term "abjad" is derived from the first four letters of the
> > > traditional order of the Arabic script.
> >
> >When they get vowel points they cease to abjads definitely,
>
> So you think that a Hebrew Genesis when unpointed is an abjad, but
> that a Hebrew Genesis pointed is no longer an abjad, but has become
> an alphabet?
No, a text isn't any sort of writing system.
The former is written with an abjad, the latter with an alphabet.
> >and when they get matres, they cease to be true or "pure" abjads.
>
> Well. the proposed text states specifically that Arabic isn't "pure".
So it's not good as the sole example.
> >Thus the only true abjad in Phoenician.
>
> Or possibly Ugaritic? And later Phoenician did adopt the matres (I
No, Ugaritic has the alephs-distinguishing-following-vowels.
Only Late Punic, under Greek influence.
> suppose because the pure abjad wasn't as practical as the matrified
> abjad).
>
> >Why is it useful to include this technical term in the study of writing
> >systems in the Unicode glossary?
>
> Well, the glossary is not all about the study of writing systems. At
So why include a term used only in the study of writing systems?
> the same time, other experts in writing systems -- and in their
> implementation -- have found the terms to be useful (or at least
> interesting). So... is there any serious objection to the definition,
> aimed not at linguists, but at people interested at understanding
> writing systems with regard to their implementation?
Surely it isn't a place such people would think of going for help?
--
Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@...