Re: Abjad and Alphabet: definition

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> Richard Wordingham wrote:

> > 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!

But for processing writing as writing, it *is* the form that
matters. The functional aspects matter when relating writing and
speech.

Richard.