Richard Wordingham wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
> > I intend to forward the following definitions to the Unicode Book
> > Committee as improvements on the current definitions:
> >
> > Abjad. A writing system in which only consonants are indicated.
>
> <Snip>
>
> > Alphabet. A writing system in which both both consonants and
> vowels
> > are indicated.
>
> <Snip>
>
> > I am satisfied with both of these as being suitable with regard to
> > the aims of the Unicode glossary
>
> Should you be? You have changed Syriac from being an abjad (like
> Arabic) to being an alphabet! Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the
> aims are.

Only Modern Aramaic uses an alphabet, because the pointing is
obligatory.

Syriac isn't an abjad like Arabic, because all long vowels don't require
a mater. It's like all the other Aramaics we know.

> For the practical purposes of recording text, there is very little
> difference between an abjad (as defined here) and an alphabet.
> There is a simple progression of symbols - typically linear, but
> zigzag in Korean. The biggest practical difference is probably
> between systems that are ligated (such as Arabic) and those that are
> not.

Good grief. I've been promulgating this _functional_ classification for
a decade and a half now, and everyone wants to revert to _formal_
characterizations!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...