Re: Abjad: definition

--- Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:

> At 20:26 -0400 2004-08-01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> You're being obtuse; please don't be.
>
> "So you think that a Hebrew Genesis when unpointed
> is written with an abjad, but that a Hebrew Genesis
> pointed is no longer written with an abjad, but has
> become an alphabet?"
>
> > The former is written with an abjad, the latter
> > with an alphabet.
>
> That's one way of putting it. I tend to prefer
> saying that the Hebrew script is an abjad, though
> it is used as an alphabet when used for Yiddish.

That's the grammatoginist way of putting it, which is
the only way Peter is interesting in seeing it - and
that is completey fair. The rest of us are talking
about practical ways of putting it, especially in the
context of computers. We are at cross-purposes. We do
not need to continue arguing this way. Obviously we
need different categorizations which are useful to
each field. The main problem seems to be that we are
borrowing terms from grammatology and giving them
different meanings based on the traits we see as
important which arise in the same groups but are not
the traits by which Peter's classification is based.
A more specific problem is that we are assigning a
different meaning to a particular word which happens
to be of Peter's devising.

> I am not sure the Hebrew points count as "letters",
> though -- in which case it may not be appropriate
> to say that the Hebrew script is used as an
> alphabet when pointed.

Then we need a solid definition of what a letter is.
And to preempt we will also need solid definitions of
what a diacritic is.

> > > > 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.
>
> Perhaps both could be mentioned.
>
> > > Well, the glossary is not all about the study
> > > of writing systems.
> >
> > So why include a term used only in the study of
> > writing systems?
>
> Because the term isn't used only in the study of
> writing systems. The term is also used in
> descriptions of writing systems as used in
> implementations for computers.
>
> > > 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?

It's one of the many places I've looked in the past.
I've also looked at Peter's book and any other place I
could find information. It is only in the past few
weeks that I realize how divergent the different ways
of talking about writing systems can be.

Andrew.

> I will take that non sequitur as an indication that
> you do not have serious objections to the
> definition. Revised as per your Phoenician
> comment:
>
> Abjad. A writing system in which only consonants are
> indicated. The Phoenician script is a prototypical
> abjad; a better-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.
>
> --
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *
> http://www.evertype.com
>

=====
http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl http://www.abisource.com





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com