4 ms·

The jump from the Phoenician abjad to the Greek alphabet was very minor. It was almost guaranteed. Phoenicians didn’t _need_ to write down vowels due to the str

The jump from the Phoenician abjad to the Greek alphabet was very minor. It was almost guaranteed. Phoenicians didn’t _need_ to write down vowels due to the structure of their language. When the Greeks adapted the Phoenician abjad (they certainly didn’t invent their own) they made some changes to make it work with their language. This happened again and again throughout history. Languages always made changes to alphabets when adapting them from other languages. But yes if you argue semantically that the alphabet is the object that the Greeks first put together then yes they did it first. But they certainly only made extremely minor changes compared to what came before. As an aside, “alphabet” is quite clearly named for the first two letters in the Phoenician abjad. Though the Greeks did take the same names for their first two letters as well.

wolverine876 3y ago
> The jump from the Phoenician abjad to the Greek alphabet was very minor. According to who? Linguists call it the invention of the alphabet and think it highly significant. Why should I listen to your claim? > As an aside, “alphabet” is quite clearly named for the first two letters in the Phoenician abjad. Though the Greeks did take the same names for their first two letters as well. How do you know that? If the Greeks used the same first two letters, that still doesn't mean they didn't use those letters, and not they etymological ancestors, as the basis for their word. Also, isn't alpha a vowel, and thus not in the abjad? Maybe the Greeks re-purposed alpha?
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > According to who? Linguists call it the invention of the alphabet and think it highly significant. Why should I listen to your claim? I’m not really sure what your argument is here. Linguists have basically defined “alphabet” to mean the symbols the Greeks used (by deciding to require symbols for vowels in an “alphabet”). That in no way means they think the Greeks are the inventors or even the main contributors to the overall concept. It’s just a starting point. Besides people usually just refer to the Phoenician abjad as the Phoenician alphabet. The fact that they didn’t use vowels didn’t mean it was less developed or anything. It just means it was adapted to the Phoenician language. Were Phoenician around today they could very well still have no symbols for vowels. That said, I’ll let you choose for yourself how important you think this all is. > Isn't alpha a vowel, and thus not in the abjad? Maybe the Greeks re-purposed alpha? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet Look at the letter names in the section “Table of Letters”. Look familiar?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Linguists have basically defined “alphabet” to mean the symbols the Greeks used (by deciding to require symbols for vowels in an “alphabet”). Why do you say that? I see you have a string of reasoning, but lots of people do. What are yours based on? Are you a linguist? Did you read a book? By who?

wolverine876 3y ago

> The jump from the Phoenician abjad to the Greek alphabet was very minor. According to who? Linguists call it the invention of the alphabet and think it highly significant. Why should I listen to your claim? > As an aside, “alphabet” is quite clearly named for the first two letters in the Phoenician abjad. Though the Greeks did take the same names for their first two letters as well. How do you know that? If the Greeks used the same first two letters, that still doesn't mean they didn't use those letters, and not they etymological ancestors, as the basis for their word. Also, isn't alpha a vowel, and thus not in the abjad? Maybe the Greeks re-purposed alpha?

CogitoCogito 3y ago
> According to who? Linguists call it the invention of the alphabet and think it highly significant. Why should I listen to your claim? I’m not really sure what your argument is here. Linguists have basically defined “alphabet” to mean the symbols the Greeks used (by deciding to require symbols for vowels in an “alphabet”). That in no way means they think the Greeks are the inventors or even the main contributors to the overall concept. It’s just a starting point. Besides people usually just refer to the Phoenician abjad as the Phoenician alphabet. The fact that they didn’t use vowels didn’t mean it was less developed or anything. It just means it was adapted to the Phoenician language. Were Phoenician around today they could very well still have no symbols for vowels. That said, I’ll let you choose for yourself how important you think this all is. > Isn't alpha a vowel, and thus not in the abjad? Maybe the Greeks re-purposed alpha? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet Look at the letter names in the section “Table of Letters”. Look familiar?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Linguists have basically defined “alphabet” to mean the symbols the Greeks used (by deciding to require symbols for vowels in an “alphabet”). Why do you say that? I see you have a string of reasoning, but lots of people do. What are yours based on? Are you a linguist? Did you read a book? By who?