5 ms·

As far as I can understand that's not a real alphabet, it's an abjad (consonants only)

by gschizas 2y ago

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
By that standard, many alphabets, including the Phoenician and Arabic alphabets, aren't "real" alphabets.
- ivanbakel 2y ago
  Indeed, Arabic is an abjad.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    shouldn't it be called a bjd?
    - georgeburdell 2y ago
      I know you’re joking, but Arabic doesn’t write short vowels only. A as in “ah” is still written, so it would be “Abjd”
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    Abjads are a type of alphabet. In fact, they're the OG alphabet.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  Yes, exactly. Linear A was the first alphabet, and greek gave "alphabet" its name. I almost get the sense that people are interpreting abjad as "lesser-than" an alphabet. It's just a distinction, it's not a value judgement.
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    It's a subclass, not a separate category. Some alphabets don't write vowels.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      How do you refer just to the sort of alphabets that do have vowels and not abjads?
adrian_b 2y ago
This is a modern distinction. Until recently the term "alphabet" was used for any writing system where the symbols correspond approximately with phonemes, regardless whether both consonants and vowels are written as in all alphabets derived from or inspired by the Greek alphabet, or only the consonants are written, like in other writing systems derived from the old Semitic alphabet, without passing through the Greek alphabet. Then the term "abjad" has been created, and also the term "abugida" (for alphabets where the base symbols are for consonants and the vowels are added as diacritic marks around the consonants), and the sense of "alphabet" has been restricted, in order to distinguish these 3 kinds of alphabets, but "alphabet" in the older wider sense can still be encountered frequently, either in the older literature or in informal speech, so one should be able to recognize both the stricter and the wider meanings. In TFA, "alphabet" is used in the old wider sense. Moreover, it is not even used correctly in that sense, because they did not find a written "alphabet" like those used in teaching, but they have found a few written texts that are believed to have been written using an alphabetic script. The oldest actual alphabets that have been found (which show the alphabetic order of the letters) are for the Ugaritic alphabet, which is older than the Phoenician alphabet, but much more recent than the oldest inscriptions that are believed to have been written with an alphabetic script.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > This is a modern distinction. Well, the actual scripts were distinguished semantically all along, and "alphabet" is also a word newer than the scripts in question. We should probably just use the words that make most sense to modern english speakers rather than... whomever you're referring to. Or just use "phonetic script" or something.
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    The word "alphabet" has been used at least since the second century AD (e.g. by Tertullian), but it is composed from the names of the first 2 letters of the Phoenician alphabet, names that must be at least 3 millennia old. Without additional conventions, "alphabet" would have been the appropriate name for any writing systems derived from the Phoenician alphabet, which include the majority of the writing systems based on alphabets, abjads or abugidas. The few other such writing systems, which have not passed through the Phoenician alphabet, are those derived from the Ancient South Arabian script, which for some reason had a different alphabetic order of the letters than the Northern Semitic alphabets, so it did not start with Alep and Bet.
leoh 2y ago
The Hebrew alphabet does not include vowels.

As far as I can understand that's not a real alphabet, it's an abjad (consonants only)

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

By that standard, many alphabets, including the Phoenician and Arabic alphabets, aren't "real" alphabets.

ivanbakel 2y ago
Indeed, Arabic is an abjad.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  shouldn't it be called a bjd?
  - georgeburdell 2y ago
    I know you’re joking, but Arabic doesn’t write short vowels only. A as in “ah” is still written, so it would be “Abjd”
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  Abjads are a type of alphabet. In fact, they're the OG alphabet.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
Yes, exactly. Linear A was the first alphabet, and greek gave "alphabet" its name. I almost get the sense that people are interpreting abjad as "lesser-than" an alphabet. It's just a distinction, it's not a value judgement.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  It's a subclass, not a separate category. Some alphabets don't write vowels.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    How do you refer just to the sort of alphabets that do have vowels and not abjads?

adrian_b 2y ago

This is a modern distinction. Until recently the term "alphabet" was used for any writing system where the symbols correspond approximately with phonemes, regardless whether both consonants and vowels are written as in all alphabets derived from or inspired by the Greek alphabet, or only the consonants are written, like in other writing systems derived from the old Semitic alphabet, without passing through the Greek alphabet. Then the term "abjad" has been created, and also the term "abugida" (for alphabets where the base symbols are for consonants and the vowels are added as diacritic marks around the consonants), and the sense of "alphabet" has been restricted, in order to distinguish these 3 kinds of alphabets, but "alphabet" in the older wider sense can still be encountered frequently, either in the older literature or in informal speech, so one should be able to recognize both the stricter and the wider meanings. In TFA, "alphabet" is used in the old wider sense. Moreover, it is not even used correctly in that sense, because they did not find a written "alphabet" like those used in teaching, but they have found a few written texts that are believed to have been written using an alphabetic script. The oldest actual alphabets that have been found (which show the alphabetic order of the letters) are for the Ugaritic alphabet, which is older than the Phoenician alphabet, but much more recent than the oldest inscriptions that are believed to have been written with an alphabetic script.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> This is a modern distinction. Well, the actual scripts were distinguished semantically all along, and "alphabet" is also a word newer than the scripts in question. We should probably just use the words that make most sense to modern english speakers rather than... whomever you're referring to. Or just use "phonetic script" or something.
- adrian_b 2y ago
  The word "alphabet" has been used at least since the second century AD (e.g. by Tertullian), but it is composed from the names of the first 2 letters of the Phoenician alphabet, names that must be at least 3 millennia old. Without additional conventions, "alphabet" would have been the appropriate name for any writing systems derived from the Phoenician alphabet, which include the majority of the writing systems based on alphabets, abjads or abugidas. The few other such writing systems, which have not passed through the Phoenician alphabet, are those derived from the Ancient South Arabian script, which for some reason had a different alphabetic order of the letters than the Northern Semitic alphabets, so it did not start with Alep and Bet.

leoh 2y ago

The Hebrew alphabet does not include vowels.