Richard Wordingham wrote:

>
> --- 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.

Then perhaps you should propose your own classification (if one were
needed), and not try to manipulate one intended for a completely
different purpose.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...