Re: Abjad: definition

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Marco Cimarosti <marco.cimarosti@...>
wrote:

> Richard Wordingham wrote:

> > It can be argued that this is not quite true - that /i:/ is /ij/
> > and /u:/ is /uw/, in which case there is nothing impure about

these

> > two cases! The same applies to the classical diphthongs /ai/
> > and /au/.

> Notice that, in fully vowelled text, there is a subtle difference

between

> yaa' and waaw used to spell /j/ and /w/ and the same two letters

used to

> spell long vowels and diphthongs: in the former case, yaa' and

waaw carry a

> sukuun, in the second they don't.

That will do for a defence. My comment was an alert rather than an
objection.

> > ALEF for /ā/ remains impure.

> I assume that alif used to represent a glottal stop, before it

became a mute

> carrier for the hamza. So, historically, you could perhaps

analyze /a:/ as

> /a/ + glottal stop.

It isn't quite as symmetric as that. /a:/ is the only long vowel
allowed before two consonants.

> OTOH, there are unmarked long /a:/'s, which are only indicated in

vowelled

> text by means of superscript alifs.

So it's an imperfect impure abjad! That's not a problem. It's a
detail, like YEH and WAW that bear hamza.

Richard.