502:"To one scholar, the West Semitic writings were an “alphabet”; to another, they were a “consonantal alphabet”; to another, they are a “consonantal writing”; to others, a “consonantry”; to another, a “consonantal syllabary.” Whatever category the West Semitic writings belonged to, they did not work like the Greek alphabet, always qualified as the “first true alphabet” or something similar. Inspecting only the external features of a writing, and mindful of the controversy, one scholar has suggested the term abjad for the West Semitic writings, an acronym from the first four signs in the Arabic signary Alif, Ba, Jim, Dal, according to an order of the signs no longer observed in modern Arabic (grouped according to letter shape). The order appears to be very old, but how old is hard to say, perhaps a variation on an unattested ancient Phoenician series aleph, beth, gimel, daleth. Now one encounters this term on Knowledge and even in print. Arabic writing is of course a West Semitic writing, in which only the long vowels are notated within the otherwise consonantal system, much as functioned the ancient matres lectionis. Unfortunately, to call West Semitic writing an abjad, a Semitic equivalent to the Greek alphabetos, does not clarify its inner structure or place the writing within a general theory of how writing systems are related historically and how as types they are related to the elements of speech. Just as well the neologism abugida, offered by the creator of “abjad” to categorize the scripts of Ethiopia and India and other similar scripts, further obscures that such writings are minor modifications of the ancient West Semitic syllabic system. The term abugida is based on a medieval Ethiopic signary, a contraction of the Semitic names aleph, beth, gimel, daleth (abugida) or however they might have sounded in Ethiopia around 1000 AD. Again, it is the Greek word alphabetos with a Semitic accent. In “abugidas” the basic sign is said to stand for a consonant + /a/, then the same consonant with different vowels is designated by diacritic marks added to the basic sign, as in the Ethiopic writing mentioned above: The medieval Ethiopic writing, c. AD 1000, based on a Southwest Semitic version of West Semitic script, worked in this way. So did the much older syllabic Indian Karosthi and Brahmi scripts. The Karosthi script appeared in the 3rd century BC in the Punjab (modern Pakistan) under the influence of earlier Persian bureaucratic use of the West Semitic Aramaic script and language. Karosthi script died out in the 3rd century AD, when the still earlier Brahmi script also disappeared. Short examples of Brahmi script have recently been found from the 5th or even 6th century BC. Karosthi and Brahmi scripts appear to be independent developments from the West Semitic Aramaic. The Brahmi syllabic script is the ancestor of all modern “native” scripts in India, including Devanagari script (“sacred script of the city”), in which today are written Hindi, Marathi, Pali, Sindhi and many other south Asian languages. Brahmi script was also the ancestor of scripts in Tibet, Mongolia, and Southeast Asia. The earliest extended documents in Brahmi are edicts published by King Ashoka, who ruled 273 to 232 BC and included in his empire most of modern India, parts of Afghanistan and Persia, and portions of Bengal. He accepted the teachings of Sakyamuni the Buddha and installed 33 edicts, which ringed all of India, about the need to follow dharma, “righteousness,” in his kingdom, and to follow other Buddhist social and moral precepts. The Edicts of Ashoka are in fact the earliest testimony to Buddhist teachings. While the edicts in the east were in Brahmi script in an eastern Indo-European language (Magadhi, probably the language of the Buddha), edicts in the west were in Karosthi script and a western Indo-European language (an ancestor to Sanskrit) … its model, Aramaic, must have been syllabic too, unless we believe that the inventor of Brahmi script rejected the “phonemic” analysis of West Semitic signs to encode syllables instead. The Greek alphabet, and its revolutionary system of vocalization, was two hundred years old in c. 600 BC, if Brahmi script goes back that far, but the inventor of Brahmi script clung nonetheless to the syllabic structure of his model. Such writings as West Semitic and Ethiopic and Brahmi are not “abjads” or “abugidas,” nomenclature based solely on external features, but old-fashioned syllabaries answering to the human faculty to break down speech into syllabic units. Such was the inner structure of these writings."
593:
Joachim
Friedrich (eds.). The idea of writing: Writing across borders. Leiden: Brill. p 24. ISBN 978-9004215450. Footnote No. 22 mentions "What is worse (however, Daniels is not to be charged with this), the distinction in favour of a 'true' Greek 'alphabet' is capable of strange eurocentristic or at least graecocentristic chauvinistic effects, as Daniels himself pointed out by rebuffing Eric Havelock...". It is clear that he is not accusing Daniels of Eurocentrism, but perhaps a mention of the implications should be made in the article, as they do in the french page? Also, i would like to question again the wisdom of using a neologism as the title of an encyclopedia article. It is mentioned in the article that there is scholarly debate on terminology and by using it in the title wikipedia seems to be choosing sides. Would this not be a violation of neutrality policy? (Note: I corrected this comment a bit).
2137:""Al-'Arabiyya", lit. "the Arabic" An example of the Arabic script, which is an impure abjad. For example, the vertical bar in the beginning indicates that the word begins with a vowel without defining it." The vertical bar at the beginning (right end) of this word is the Arabic equivalent of the long A; the first two letters are the definite article 'al.' The third letter is the first letter of the word normally transliterated as 'arabyyia' but in fact is a glottal stop -- usually symbolized, if necessary, in English with an apostrophe as 'Arabia. It may sound odd to say that Arabic words do not begin with vowels but it's true. Words we are familiar with which appear to begin with vowels (such as Arabic, algebra, Amman) begin either with a (non-transliterated) glottal stop or the definite article.
813:). other topics of discissions in that article about Abjad is why Arabic Abjad is an exception and takes its power from 9 and letter ghain or its last letter is equal to 1000 (what does 1000 mean in the occult and mathematical numerology of Arabic Abjad?) connection of numerology and especially Abjad with Philosophy of Deleuze and Gauttari's numeracy or numbering numbers in the wake of numerous occult and numerology stuff on War on Terror on the net, the article depicts why Kaballah and Abjad are used frequently. interesting properties of Abjad when it is applied (i.e. installed) to the Numogram (aka Decimal Labyrinth) and Tree of Life. The article is not mine but i thought it is a good text to show how Abjad has developed systematically and enters to occult and philosophy.
1063:
characters (except for the 'inherent vowel'), so it can also be called an alphabet that just combines the consonant and vowel characters as syllabic characters. True, abugidas differ systematically from pure alphabets in one respect, namely that a lone consonant character denotes not just that consonant but a syllable where it is followed by the inherent vowel, whatever it is in that abugida, and to silence the vowel an extra character is needed. But you can conceive of a writing system which is just like a normal alphabet but where a consonant not followed by a vowel would be interpreted as having a default (inherent) vowel after it, and to silence it you would need an extra character. (Like when writing the
English word 'mate' you would write
657:
himself. There is a wall of text in footnote 2, extensively repeating source content, which may be a violation of wikipedia guidelines on repeating source content. Maybe that footnote should be shortened, or maybe the same extensive footnotes should be included about criticism by Lehman (or others that i do not know of). It was not my intention to create a new debate, but I get the impression that the debate was there all along and the article does not adress that. But you are right, one cannot prove a negative fact, that no recent criticism exists, I have no other citations that show the debate is ongoing, so I agree it should remain as it is.
2118:
hieroglyphs via the proto-sinaitic script. What is important to note is that hieratic and hieroglyphic writing did not evolve one out of the other, but from what we know today they evolved alongside each other in the same environment for different purposes. Hieratic was used for everyday writing, hieroglyphic for monumentary inscriptions. They are both adbjads in the sense that they do not write vowels. The hieroglyphic writing is to complex to be narrowed down by so a specific term however, and the term would be somewhat debased if carelessly extended to include hieroglyphic writing.
31:
95:
208:
85:
198:
177:
64:
22:
1727:
difficult than most other languages to read without vowels--take the
Spanish and Italian examples cited above, where gender and number are obscured by removing vowels. In Arabic or Hebrew, practically EVERY grammatical category (not just gender and number) is determined by vowel choice. See chapter 8 of Florian Coulmas's "Writing Systems of the World" (Blackwell, 1989) for elaboration on this argument.
1562:" "Impure" abjads (such as Arabic and Hebrew) may have characters for some vowels as well (called matres lectionis, 'mothers of reading', singular mater lectionis), or optional vowel diacritics, or both; however, the originator of the term abjad, Peter T. Daniels, insists that it should be applied only to scripts entirely lacking in vowel indicators, thus excluding Arabic, Hebrew, and Syriac."
1229:
matters linguistic -- write a better sentence that is clear enough not require the reader to do further research simply to understand the point of the sentence?; and 2) could someone who knows about
Daniels and abjads and matres lectionis please rewrite this sentence? I would if I felt sure I understood what the gist of it was, but I don't, so I won't. Thanks for any help.
2502:
1224:"Impure" abjads (such as Arabic) may have characters for some vowels as well (called matres lectionis, 'mothers of reading', singular mater lectionis), or optional vowel diacritics, or both; however, the term's originator, Peter T. Daniels, insists that it should be applied only to scripts entirely lacking in vowel indicators, thus excluding Arabic, Hebrew, and Syriac.
2375:, in writing; I can immediately tell that the writer means "cussing at/insulting each other". Now obviously, this can be done with a fully-alphabetic script, but an abjad makes it easier for someone with just a little practice in doing so. The word تشاتم is visually more similar to the word تفاعل than their equivalents in another script: the root and stem are the
478:
remains implied." Who are the "most"? There is no citation, and with good reason: it isn't true. The view of West
Semitic systems as "odd syllabaries" has been conclusively refuted. Yes, they derived originally from the Egyptian system, but they work very differently from the Egyptian, which is why they have a different name.
1647:. I'm not aware that any other people added vowels to abjads, so it seems more accurate to say that all 'true' alphabets follow the Greek model. Maybe there is truth to the hypothesis that the writing systems of India are derived from the Phoenician, but they obviously had to have pre-dated the Greeks' innovation.
538:
the term "adjab" has been criticised as eurocentric (their link is dead though, so i did not add that to the english terminology section). It seems to me that if the term has not been accepted in scholarly debate the article should be titled as "consonantal alphabet", and "abjad" should be a subsection at best.
2512:
linguistics, and history, have recognized that the use of
Christian date designations, in a world in which scholars increasingly come from the two-thirds of the world's population that is non Christian, is inappropriate, except, perhaps, in articles about Christianity itself or about the Christian world.
1602:"For example, the Hebrew word הורישׁ probably underwent the following pronunciation change: *hawriʃ → *howriʃ → horiʃ. The ו, which was originally the consonant w, became the vowel o. Later, probably in the Second Temple period, the vowel use of ו was expanded to places where no consonant ever existed."
1861:
Additionally, I think the cultural bias permeates throughout. It's telling that the
Addition of Vowels section explains that the first "true" alphabet is derived from an Abjad, yet in the article Abjads are called "unusual," and the tone implies some kind of inferiority throughout. This reminds me of
1679:
Many non-Semitic languages such as
English can be written without vowels and read with little difficulty. For example, if the Latin alphabet were a pure abjad, the previous sentence could be written Mn nn-Smtc lnggs sch s nglsh cn b wrttn wtht vwls nd rd wth lttl dffclt (an impure abjad would include
1478:
I have seen these terms in wide use for years in both academic circles and the internet. It may be true that the terms are the invention of a single researcher, but so are many other scientific terms. As I see it, the terms are becoming established, so I don't see any problem other than the statement
1257:
Right now the second lead paragraph begins "As with all syllabary-like forms, abjads differ from alphabets in that only the consonants, not vowels, are represented in the basic graphemes." Surely this is a misrepresentation of syllabaries? I thought syllabaries are characterized by using a symbol for
1077:
Also, one characteristic of prototypical syllabaries is that for every kind of consonant-vowel combination there is a separate, independent character, whereas in abugidas syllables with the same consonant share the character for that consonant and similarly for the vowels. Usually you wouldn't call a
477:
This paragraph should be removed: "Daniels terms look at the external features of these writings, but ignore their historical membership in the large family of West
Semitic writings. Most prefer to regard the West Semitic writings as an odd syllabary in which the consonant is specified, but the vowel
298:
No--A number system that has a distinct symbol for "5" and "50", does not restrict itself to ten digits, does not depend on powers of 10 for placement, and which does not hold symbols for powers of 10 in any prominence compared to other symbols, cannot be considered 'decimal' by ANY definition of the
286:
I have moved the following. In all cases that I have seen, those systems are decimal, they are just not "digital". Greek numbers assigned letters values of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,20,30,40,50, &c. Looks pretty decimal to me. They just indicate the power of ten by using a different symbol instead
2530:
A more general decision to switch exclusively (with a few exceptions) to nonsectarian date designations in
Knowledge is something that I and others have previously suggested would be appropriate and advisable, but the original administrative decision to allow the initiating author to make the choice
2152:
It's true. No Arabic words (to be more precise, no Arabic syllables) begin with vowels. The alif (vertical bar) of the definite article (usually transliterated as al-) does NOT mark a long vowel, as it does in the middle of a word. Instead, it represents a so-called "hamzat al-wasl" (linking hamza),
1228:
My question is: does the phrase "the term" after the semi-colon refer to "impure abjads", "abjads", or "mater lectionis"? And my requests are: 1) yes, I know that I could go look up Peter T. Daniels to research which term he originated, but couldn't whoever wrote this -- presumably someone expert in
896:
Yes although Abjad is not peculiar to Baha'ie but only two sects (both considered as renegades by Sunnies and Shias) are adept in using Abjad (i.e. Arabic / Farsi Abjad); first 'Horoofi' (letters) sect founded by Mirza Fazlollah-e Astar'abadi and then Bahai'e. They are both regarded as two religions
870:
Yes, you are right; it seems the article has some references to other discussions. The subject of 'the warmachine and numerology' refers to the discussion of warmachines and smoothspace in A Thousand Plateaus (Deleuze and Guattari) and also this article on why numerologic systems (Abjads) do not use
329:
This is confusing, and it may be owing to confusion over the terms abjad vs. abugida in the field, but this article's opening suggests that graphemes in an abjad may have marks indicating vowels... but also says that an abjad is not an abugida because an abugida may have marks indicating vowels. I'm
2234:
The following paragraph is unsourced and generally in such bad shape (apparently mangled through repeated sloppy cuts and pastes) that I have simply removed it. Because I am not familiar enough with the topic, I have no idea where to begin copyediting it. The paragraph also feels out of place, and
2102:
page which lists itself as part of the abjad system, someone states "It is an error to view hieratic as a derivative of hieroglyphic writing. The earliest texts from Egypt are produced with ink and brush, with no indication their signs are descendants of hieroglyphs." On this page the suggestion of
1611:
by Nikkud points, and another (the "long" vowels) which sat on an actual letter, such as vav or yud. I don't know anything about the Second Temple period and the developments in Hebrew spelling at that time. However, if the proponent of this information has a cite which backs it up, this would be a
1573:
has any place in this article at all, it needs to be explained better. The term is the singular, so it should be the lead, and the plural should be mentioned afterwards (opposite to the current arrangement). Nobody cares what Peter Daniels insists. If he has defined a term and that term is relevant
1219:
The lead sentence in the section "Impure Abjads" is confusing, because in the clause after the semi-colon a reference is made to "the term". The problem for me is that in the previous clause there were two terms introduced: one is "Impure Abjads", which I assume is the term that is to be defined in
809:
it is an introduction on how the history of abjad develops, the article tracks the Arabic / Farsi lineage of Abjad (as there are many forms of Abjad) and it discusses how Arabic Abjad is devided into 9 powers (how zero is used as place holder) instead of Kaballah which gains power from 10. the tool
537:
Do we actually have evidence that the term "adjab" has been accepted by most other scholars? Or at lest english speaking scholars? Is there a scholarly debate going on? The french and german pages still refer to a "alphabet consonantique" and "Konsonantenschrift". The french page even mentions that
1828:
You're correct, it represented a glottal stop. Actually, this highlights why Abjads take some getting used to by speakers of English - the English "vowel" A also begins with a glottal stop in many contexts, such as by itself or at the beginning of a sentence or even word. In any case, short vowels
1062:
An abugida is both a full syllabary and a full alphabet in many respects. A pure abugida makes available characters for every syllable in the language, so it can be called a syllabary. However, these characters are composites of characters for consonants and vowels, for all of which there are such
829:
However, there is one problem, that certain warmachines cannot be diagramed exclusively by strictly semitic-based, vowelless-oriented systems of numeracy as in the case of techno-capitalist Warmachines running on WoTerror. Here Arabic Abjad is the best numbering platform (let aside the polarity of
656:
Attempting to disqualify Lehman citations is bad sport. It is my undestanding that he has a relevant university degree, is recognised as an expert, and his work has long been cited on the different language wikipedia pages (that I can read). It does seem to me that the article mostly cites Daniels
361:
This incorporates a distinction between a symbol and a character that is completely lost on me. When is a symbol not a character? When is a character not a symbol? If such things as vowel points in Semitic writing systems are symbols but not characters, which I guess is what the sentence means, it
2511:
These talk sections begin at least as early as October 2003, meaning that the article, itself, was written at least 13 years ago. Increasingly, since that time, however, scholars using dates preceding the Christian era, and especially those working in fields such as archeology, Biblical studies,
2158:
If for some reason the word does not come after a vowel (because, for instance, it stands at the beginning of the sentence), a glottal stop (hamza) is pronounced. As Cross Reference noted above, this sound is almost never marked in Western transliterations, particularly at the beginning of words.
2117:
To be precise, the hieroglyphic writing is also to a certain extent abjad since it represents consonants but not vowels. What complicates the hieroglyphs is that they can also represent morphemes, kind of like the mesopotamian cuneiform. The abjads in use today are presumed to be derived from the
2026:
I noticed that the undiscussed move occurred, and figured someone was being bold by moving a lesser-known term to a well-known one... but: The sources given only refer to abjads and never use the term "consonantary". Also, "consonantary" totally fails the google test, only 3,580 hits compared to
1083:
What I'm saying is that there are no clear-cut categories for the writing systems, but rather a continuum with focal points that we call alphabet, syllabary, abugida (alphasyllabary), abjad (consonantary), logographic system, etc. Most systems have properties of many of these prototypical cases,
1625:
Copyedit required here. How about, "The world's first 'true' alphabet was the Greek. It was developed by extending the Phoenician abjad by the addition of symbols used exclusively for vowel sounds. The Greeks actually adapted several existing symbols, which were used for gutteral consonants not
592:
I actually located a citation for the Eurocentrism accusation. The relevant work is allready mentioned in the article, in footnote 5, just not the exact page. Lehmann, Reinhard G. (2011). "Ch 2 27-30-22-26. How Many Letters Needs an Alphabet? The Case of Semitic". In de Voogt, Alex & Quack,
294:, a system of assigning numeric values to individual letters. Before the development of the decimal number system, this was one of the regular systems for writing numbers. In some languages, the relationship between words and numbers created by this system has led to poetic and mystical usages.
2526:
Since, therefore, it would appear that the original author of "Abjad" may have intentionally chosen to inappropriately substitute Christian date designations for the nonsectarian designations used by Daniels and Bright; and because, in the intervening 13 years since that decision was made, the
1726:
I realize I'm several years late to this party, but I wanted to point out to Looris that your "unreadable" sentence was actually not difficult for me to read without the vowels, though it certainly took a moment. Anyway, as to the greater point, in my view, Semitic languages are actually MORE
878:
numerical simplification. (Both aspects essential to 'numerization'). The currencies - or concrete semiotics - of commercial war machines, share these characteristics of digital 'granularity' and pre-eminence of modularity (typically on a decimal base) or the compositional aspect of number."
877:
qoute from that article: "To be crude, there is a 3rd Army, not a 3.14th Army or a Pi Army etc. - a fact holding for every compositional level of the war machine in question. Making culture operate as a war machine requires the disintegration of all semiotics into numbers and a complementary
748:
The german page explicitly states his area of expertise is are Northwest Semitic (old Hebrew, Phoenician and Aramaic) epigraphy and grammatology and old Hebrew and Phoenician palaeography, calligraphy, typography and writing technique. Not just hebrew. He even worked on the inscriptions on a
1427:
The vowel sound is not implied at all. It is simply not there. There are plenty of graphemes that have two or more correct pronunciations. The reader can often choose the correct pronunciation based on knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language. Phonology has nothing to do with
2507:
It is unfortunate that the original author of this article (Abjad) chose to use the date designations "BC" and "AD." No part of the article itself is about languages derived from Greek or Latin. Further, the periods discussed are from 100 years to 1900 years before the Christian era.
1788:
Hmm, after reading the Phonecian alphabet article, and the phenome article, it seems the first letter in the Phonecian Abdjad was "'" - a glottal constanant. So something is wrong with the first picture's undertitle. Don't know what it should be instead though; can someone change it?
1099:
It's semi-annoying that the more common and long-established meaning of the word Abjad has been shuffled off to a sub-section of the "Arabic Alphabet" article, while the Abjad article is now devoted to a recent scholarly neologism. Shouldn't there at least be a disambiguation page?
2600:, the OP did everything correctly according to recommendations to a point). Two reasons were put forth for why the calendar era MOS should be changed, contra to the "keep existing style" convention: 1., the article's subject matter pertains to the non-Christian world; and, 2., the
976:
I am going to suggest deletion of the new addition about a "single-word" pronunciation of the Hebrew alphabet. It sounds contrived to me. Unless the contributor can provide some reference to verify that this sequence actually exists somewhere in literature, I'm going to ax it.
2271:
Incidentally, I have also removed the last line of this section, as it was a fragment of a sentence apparently also orphaned through cutting and pasting. It had no clear antecedent anywhere in the section (and, for that matter, no real relevance to the topic that I could
1706:)? In Italian even number would be indistinguishable, as gender and number are, for many nouns and adjectives, indicated by vowel endings, -o/-a/-i/-e! Some languages with case would fail to distinguish those, too. I restored an edited version of the deleted paragraph
1891:", not to compare people who use various writing systems. I went ahead and removed it anyway, because it was superfluous, unsourced and I can see how it contributed to the perception of cultural bias. I hope this helps, although additional sources are badly needed. –
2527:
scholarly world has emphatically switched to using the nonsectarian date designations "CE" and “BCE"; I recommend that the date designations in this article be changed to "CE" and "BCE," either by the original author or by a decision made by Knowledge administrators.
1551:
This seems to imply that the Proto-Sinaitic abjad was derived from a syllabary, which is not true, even under the hypothesis which suggests it came from Egyptian hieroglyphs. The sentence needs to be reworked. The rest of the paragraph could use some copyediting as
2624:
would concede are valid reasons. Since Knowledge's guidelines allow for exceptions under circumstances in which there are good reasons, meseemeth it be obstructionist to quash the discussion based on some Wiki policy that does not exist (keep existing MOS as is,
1462:
Personally, I like the neatness and compactness of these two terms. However, if they truly have not been widely accepted, then we should seriously consider "demoting" them to footnotes and renaming the respective articles accordingly. "Consonantary" works for
960:
because the word abjad comes from them, and because it is interesting that there are variations in the later part of the sequence. The Arabic alphabet article is getting too long as it is - I don't think moving this information there would be a wise move.
1401:
This is incorrect. Modern Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic and Persian are all "impure" abjads because they all have symbols which are used to represent vowels, although not all vowels are represented in these modern systems. According to our own article
2661:
I added Matres Lectionis count to the table, I wasn't sure about Identifing them as the names are two long , using each script is kind of unhelpful for the reader, and useing only one is biased. For the record here they are in Hebrew Script.
1660:
Neither צ nor ק is a co-articulated consonant. Further, the Greeks could have used the letter ה, since they had the sound /h/ at the time, and later developed a unique method of representing it (accents on the initial letter where the /h/ sound
1593:
representation for vowels, then by definition, it has no representation for diphthongs either. The sentence is wrong. Impure abjads develop when a consonantal symbol acquires a dual purpose, representing both a consonant and a vowel (or
897:
or sects which have developed Abjad not as a simple numerological system but a religion of numbers or what Deleuze and Gauttari suggest as "numbering numbers" which are entities (entity as event) rather than mere representations.
810:
of analysis is 'numogram' which is another kabbalistic / Abjad form of Tree of Life except as numogram is constituted by syzygies (twin numbers) whose sum must be equal to 9 (the 9 is the ABJAD power) instead of 10 (see for example:
2367:
It's the old Arabic professor's advice to students uncertain of a new word's meaning. Let's say that I know the root Shin-Ta-Mim means "to curse at/insult" and that Stem VI (tafā`ala) is the mutual construction. Then I run into the
825:
This is why ABJADs are perfectly applicable to ultra-complex dynamic platforms (such as warmachines and their plane of tacticity), digraming a numeracy “immanenet to thier assemblges” and soft grids of movement (read Nick’s post).
1743:
Semitic languages do not only rely on vowel choice to indicate grammatical categories. They make frequent use of affixes of various kinds. Cases where a crucial aspect of meaning hinges *only* on a choice of vowels are not that
1214:
1838:
There are a good amount of weasel words in the intro. Also, I am pretty sure that "an unusual sort of syllabary" smacks of cultural bias, as there are more than a billion people who use this "unusual" system regularly.
1574:
to the article, we should have his actual definition. This section is about impure abjads as defined by him. This is the location to provide more information about why Arabic, Hebrew and Syriac fall into this category.
760:
668:
604:
549:
2103:
proto-sinaticus and thus abjad writing is derived from the hieroglyphs. Either there is a contradiction on this page, or something needs to be mentioned about why people think hieroglyphs originate abjad writing.
835:
The ancestry tree of writing systems is nice, but I think a similiar one is already included in one of the other writing system articles, I'm too stupid to fint it right now. If not it needs being drawed and
2307:. I corrected it. It's from the order of all Semitic-legacy letters, such as Arabic letters, which used to be ordered that way, as Hebrew and other Semitic scripts letters. The new ordering which is called
881:
thanks, i will start to write a draft, i'll see if the writers of Hyperstition who are experts (former professors or philosophers) can join us in building up wikipedia or helping me to write this article.
35:
2651:
2249:: ʼbjad hwz ḥṭy klmn sʼpṣ qršt)... In Arabic أبجد هوز حطي كلمن سعفص قرشت ثخذ ضظغ. These meaningless words collect all Arabic letters, the first one is أبجد Abjad were the names of the rulers of region of
1455:"The terms abjad and abugida appear to be the inventions of Peter T. Daniels, as explained in his book (with William Bright) The World's Writing Systems (Oxford, 1996). They have not won wide acceptance."
1071:
or something along those lines). Would you call that an abugida or an alphabet? Because the characters for consonants and vowels would be equal and separate, it would probably be called a special kind of
2548:
2007:. As far as I can tell, this move was not discussed at all. The main issue with this is that none of the transcluded templates were edited to have the new name in them. Should this be moved back to
1694:
English would certainly be a lot more difficult to read than, say, Arabic in a consonant-only script. And in a language like Spanish, you'd be unable to distinguish masculine and feminine forms! Is
2751:
1040:
as a parallel to "alphabet" (the word is formed from the first letters of the most widespread example, the Arabic script, in their historic order . . . ), the characters denote consonants (only).
830:
Farsi / Arabic cultures in WoTerror) as it has characters for some vowels as well; creatively letting some problematic but also fundamentally crucial numbering entities and functions enter in.
325:...in an abjad, each basic grapheme represents a consonant, although vowels may be indicated by marks on the basic graphemes.... In an abjad, each basic grapheme represents only a consonant.
851:
952:
It seems you are suggesting a split because "alphabet" and "alphabetical order" are two concepts. However, it makes sense to me to make a cursory reference to the abjad sequencing in the
1527:"All known abjads belong to the Semitic family of scripts, and derive from the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet, the earliest known abjad, derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs, dated to ca. 1500 BC."
764:
608:
694:
I came to the conclusion he's an expert in theology and Hebrew, esp. Hebrew syntax and Hebrew epigraphy. None of those fields deals with the classification of the world's scripts.
2741:
1471:. An earlier editor complained on this talk page that "abjad" has had an established meaning for centuries, something which Knowledge now has on part of the Arabic alphabet page (
927:
Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abjad}} to this page. —
1438:"(In an abugida, the vowel sounds are defined with the grapheme, and any modifications from the standard vowel sound, including no vowel sound, are represented by vowel marks.)"
2756:
2031:, I think at least one scholarly source for that term should exist in the article, and it should explain why consonantary is a better accepted and more descriptive term. –
1634:"This has mostly happened when the script was adapted to a non-Semitic language, the most famous case being the derivation of the Greek alphabet from the Phoenician abjad."
1921:
I've added a couple of further references and removed the "single-source" flag. -- I think the intent of the word "unusual" was based on the broad application of the term
756:
664:
600:
545:
1445:
I think this paragraph needs to be neatened up. It seems to be about contrasting "abjads" with other types of writing systems. The sentences ought to be roughly parallel.
1031:
The World's Writing Systems", Peter T. Daniels & William Bright, general editors, OUP, 1996. Section 1, "The Study of Writing Systems", written by Peter T. Daniels.
939:
It doesn't make sense to me to have abjad, the name of a kind of writing system, and abjad, the name of a particular order of the Arabic alphabet, in the same article.
2709:
You removed my edit taking care of the table overflow. Do you mind telling me why you prefer the way it is at present? It overflows both on desktop and mobile view. –
2608:
the MOS convention in the sources, for no apparent reason that any reasonable argument could be made for doing so (apologies for the redundancy of that sentence ;) ).
704:
What I meant above when I said "a footnote in one article" is this: If that remark wasn't broadly discussed by grammatologists but has remained an isolated statement,
311:
2503:
Era:Date designations in "Abjad" should be changed to "CE" and "BCE," reflecting current practice and reflecting the designations actually used in the primary source
1979:
1607:
Sorry, I don't buy this. Someone deleted it yesterday, and the proponent put it back. Old (pre-1945) Hebrew orthography had one set of vowels which were represented
1233:
345:
1569:
This paragraph actually contradicts the rest of the article. An impure abjad has symbols for some of the vowels, or symbols which are sometimes used for vowels. If
159:
1873:
1850:
1243:
I just neatened up this section a bit, but I still don't know if it belongs in this article. Any thoughts? If you think it doesn't, feel free to take it out. --
1258:
each syllable, not necessarily by hiding vowel sounds. Many syllabaries contain different symbols with the same consonant sound but different vowel sounds (e.g.
2084:
942:
I think this should be split into two articles, Abjad (linguistics) and Abjad order. Or alternatively Abjad order should be in the Arabic alphabet article. --
782:
I removed the folowing link from the article. It doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain what this is about before adding links, which need exaplanation.
1119:
1115:
307:
264:
729:
672:
643:
585:
1078:
system a syllabary if the parts of the syllables can be distinguished, but once again, cases in between could be imagined and probably can be found, too.
553:
2540:
2532:
844:
2580:
Acknowledging that the OP was perhaps a bit excessively verbose, and strayed from its main objective a few times, the primary subject of the post was
1954:
850:
pv000, if you are interested in this, but not confident enought to start a new article right now, I suggest writing a draft in your user space, e.g.
1949:
Even before I saw the note about not representing a worldwide view, I'd added my paragraph about the Tengwar. This is NOT intended as a stunt; when
1829:
are not written in Abjads, so while the English speaker hears the vowel sound, the consonant sounds like "nothing" and you say "it must be a vowel."
1774:
Maybe a stupid question, but if the first character in the Phonecian Abjad is "A", then how does this not contain vowels? Is A not a vowel anymore?
2559:
2166:
Thus the explanation under the picture is incorrect, and I shall remove it. (This doesn't change the fact that Arabic script is an impure abjad.)--
1025:
1953:
did his inventing, he always drew on his philological knowledge, and I think it's fascinating that a European Christian produced an impure abjab!
1612:
really good place for it. Also, I think it should be made clear that the hypothesis that vav originally represented the /w/ sound is a hypothesis.
2766:
1968:...which I have proceeded to remove. Fascinating as it might be to some, a pop culture reference is hardly appropriate (much less useful) here.
149:
2235:
the flow of the section is improved without it. If someone can clean it up ßß and more importantly, source it -- feel free to add it back in.
2162:
If a vowel precedes this hamzat al-wasl, it is not pronounced. For example Abu al-Hawl (the Sphinx) is pronounced "abulhawl", not *"abualhawl".
749:
phoenician sarcophagus. It is obvious he qualifies as a proper authority on the matter. But lacking further bibliography the article is fine.
2687:
2132:
2119:
499:
Barry B. Powell writes about this term (2009, Writing: Theory and History of the Technology of Civilization. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 172-174):
472:
2776:
1252:
1230:
254:
990:
The actual Hebrew sequence, as may be pronounced as a single word due to the unnecessity of vowels in the Hebrew language, is as follows:
1220:
this section; and the term "mater lectionis" together with its plural variant "matres lectionis". Here is the sentence as it now stands:
934:
568:
of ca. 450 pages ("dépôt légal: novembre 2020"). There's nothing wrong with that frequent term that is often preferred to its synonyms.
125:
1406:, there were quite a few vowel symbols in that system as well. As far as I know, the only "true" abjad is the ancient Phoenician, and
2781:
2736:
2571:
2146:
839:
The link would make more sense, if the numerology behind this would have an overview treatmeant in the Knowledge, either here, or in
2761:
2463:
is certainly not an abjad - The vowels must be written out (א, ע, י, ו, װ, ײ). I think the same is true for Ladino. However, the
1626:
occurring in the Greek language, and gave them new phonetic values." I'm not completely happy with this phrasing, but it's a start.
1877:
1753:
1056:
2746:
2408:
2388:
1983:
1122:
2296:
2066:
2048:
1274:). Thus each symbol represents the syllable, not just the consonant (or vowel). Am I wrong, or should the lead be corrected? --
493:
230:
1908:
1736:
2771:
532:
121:
108:
69:
2175:
1193:
946:
2488:
2467:
is used for these languages, so I don't know whether to correct the table or not. Please advise or execute the change. --
2397:
Not necessary. For example, هاتف feels like it's from هتاف "chanting", unrelated to the communication machine "telephone".
2292:
965:
315:
1088:
2468:
2323:
order if they were to be used in numbering, the same way it is done in English: a, b, c, d or I, II, III, IV, V, VI...
1975:
1346:
1285:
341:
1934:
1821:
1684:
r y nsn? Ths s TTLLY NRDBL! f crs y cn rd tht f y hv jst rd th sm sntnc wth th vwls, try wtht knwng n dvnc wht t mns! --
1496:
2531:
for each article has been allowed to stand. Perhaps it's time to again revisit that original administrative decision.
1869:
1846:
485:
1719:
1710:
1385:
560:
Abjad is an accepted technical term that is current among experts. To give a recent example, it is used in Dimitrios
349:
221:
182:
2379:
information on the word we are given, making it substantially easier to recognize the patterns and integrate them.
2192:
2080:
1854:
1668:
518:
281:
1302:
2731:
2496:
2436:
2422:
I added a chart of extinct and extant abjads. Please help to improve it (add citations, improve my style, etc..)
2315:
was an attempt to order letters together according to their similar shapes. Arabic letters are still used in the
1483:
811:
334:
2476:
1833:
1238:
919:
904:
2481:
Instead of using the term abjad, they should just use the Hebrew word for it, "Aleph-Bet", and call it that.
2450:
2020:
1247:
626:? Has this been further discussed in an academic context, or are we creating a new debate on that topic here?
2281:
2224:
44:
2088:
1179:
1175:
1147:
1134:
2717:
2523:
use the modern nonsectarian date designations "CE" and "BCE" ("common era" and "before the common era").
1962:
1655:"The Greeks did not need the letters for the guttural (א, ה, ח, ע) and co-articulated (צ, ק) consonants."
1353:. The pronunciation is modern. The pronunciation is still common among Teimanim and some Mizrahim, see
2676:
In addition the vowels of Ugaritic are a,i,u. a replaces aleph and the two others are added at the end.
2604:
for the article use the BCE/CE convention, therefore the original author of the article made a point of
2159:(This is mainly due to the fact that noticing this stop is difficult for speakers of Western languages.)
1584:"Impure abjads develop when, due to phonetic change, a previous consonant or diphthong becomes a vowel."
1104:
2695:
2629:
exceptions - there is no such guideline that says no exceptions). Therefore, any editor who woulded be
2567:
2492:
2455:
2216:
itself derives from the Arabic word for alphabet" before noticing it was discussed further down in the
1887:
I think the intent of the word "unusual" in the intro was meant to compare the term Abjad to the term "
1798:
1369:
1174:
Not sure of how other regions would pronounce it, but accordingly, the closest Anglicization would be:
1003:, it had no apparent relation to the surrounding text, or indeed to the article, since the material on
981:
2027:
7,320,000 for "abjad". My feeling is that it would be best to move it back. If it is going to stay at
1688:
1209:
2334:
2142:
1783:
1154:
1141:
1008:
1000:
2656:
2360:
1990:
1732:
1472:
719:
633:
575:
1620:"Many scripts derived from abjads have been extended with vowel symbols to become full alphabets."
1544:"The development of an abjad was a significant simplification compared to the earlier syllabaries"
1020:
229:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2700:
2647:
2472:
2431:
2277:
2112:
2074:
2062:
2016:
1673:
1094:
888:
357:
An abjad is a type of writing system where there is one symbol per character (as in an alphabet).
872:
786:
2384:
2221:
2200:
2127:
1944:
1769:
1331:
691:
619:
489:
2563:
2544:
2536:
2427:
2404:
2356:
2330:
2229:
1510:"It has been suggested that the word Abjad may have earlier roots in Phoenician or Ugaritic."
1380:
1363:
1266:), and also different symbols with the same vowel sound but different consonant sounds (e.g.
1200:
1189:
1128:
971:
724:
697:
638:
580:
113:
50:
2346:
2257:
had devised the order of the alphabet according to their names. Abjad (originally, Abu Jad,
1925:
to a variety of scripts that Daniels showed to have significant typological differences. --
2484:
2138:
1971:
1958:
1865:
1842:
1749:
1350:
1291:
Since nobody voiced a differing opinion, I will correct the lead regarding syllabaries. --
752:
660:
596:
541:
528:
514:
506:
481:
303:
712:
policy to give that statement "undue weight" in a short article half of which is a table.
8:
2714:
1728:
399:, it seems to be numerological system based on the arabic letters. From german Knowledge
21:
2643:
2273:
2108:
2058:
2032:
2012:
1892:
1805:
1318:
714:
628:
570:
213:
116:
interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to
2633:
to such a change should put forth their reasons for why the change should not be made
2621:
2380:
2286:
2706:
2691:
2446:
2423:
2400:
2352:
2326:
2171:
2123:
2093:
1950:
1930:
1794:
1779:
1403:
1354:
1205:
Hebrew tet is homologous to greek theta. It wasn't removed or turned into a vowel.
1185:
705:
367:
1534:
The derivation of Proto-Sinaitic is a hypothesis. This assertion needs a citation.
400:
2666:
Syriac, Arabic, Aramaic (Imperial), Pahlavi, Sogdian - אוי (generaly a, u, i)
2620:
talk page. Two reasons have been put forth, which I think an average nonpartison
2340:
1745:
524:
510:
2212:
itself derives from the first four letters of the Arabic alphabet" to "The name
2710:
1665:
1377:
1358:
1326:
1322:
1297:
1280:
1053:
1015:
978:
962:
709:
463:
Somebody in the know should correct this, I'm not sure enough to do it myself.
117:
100:
2441:
Aren't both the same? I think there is a duplicate mention in this article. --
1110:
yes, make this a disambiguation page, and have the article on abjadi order at
2725:
2609:
2597:
2593:
2417:
2188:
2104:
1308:
1206:
1101:
943:
371:
331:
370:, while later in the article it seems to be at least implicitly included. --
2028:
2004:
1996:
1493:
1480:
1244:
1151:
1111:
1085:
1004:
928:
911:
859:
792:
623:
466:
396:
384:
94:
2515:
Finally, the article is largely based on the work of Daniels and Bright's
2317:
2309:
2301:
903:
798:
2442:
2217:
2183:
Please replace this example with one that does contain some long vowels.
2167:
1926:
1790:
1775:
1716:
1685:
1336:
1138:
820:
I still find the link confusing, taking for instance a snippet like this:
388:
226:
1133:
Given that it's a neologism, could the pronunciation be included. Is it
700:
so I thought you were able to read German. Sorry if that isn't the case.
120:
on Knowledge. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
2369:
2254:
1707:
1394:"Some abjads in use are Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, and Avestan."
1314:
840:
2220:
section. Should that sentence in the lede be eliminated altogether? —
1888:
1292:
1275:
1215:
request for clarification of lead sentence in section "Impure Abjads"
1049:
1012:
953:
291:
2184:
2099:
1271:
1263:
330:
not the person to do it, but this paragraph needs to be clarified.
207:
2349:
that claims the Abjad orthography improves word root recognition?
777:
2460:
2246:
1488:
Addition: Granted, a perfectly good optional term for abugida is
1067:
if e were the inherent vowel, and to write 'mat' you would write
1160:
If you were looking for how Arabic speakers pronounce the word:
2752:
Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
2680:
2258:
2250:
1146:
My IPA isn't the best but it should be more along the lines of
2008:
2000:
957:
915:
197:
176:
84:
63:
1804:
I've made a change that hopefully clears up the problem. –
1862:
what used to pass for anthropology in the 19th century.
1639:
Whoa, there. It is not the "most famous"; it's the first
2679:
Mandai is actually an alphabeth, somewhat prefigurating
2265:, meaning great grandfather) was the eldest of them all.
2241:
According to an Arab legend, it is said that the ( six )
1011:
elsewhere; this was apparently overlooked at the time. —
2742:
Knowledge vital articles in Society and social sciences
1347:
Hebrew alphabet#Vowels and consonants in Ancient Hebrew
379:
See also Bahá'í, where abjad is a numerological system.
2757:
C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
1084:
which are still useful for describing their nature. -
2299:
which was misleading towards the origin of the word
566:
The Nature of Writing. A Theory of Grapholinguistics
225:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
203:
90:
1420:"in abjads the vowel sound is implied by phonology"
618:Why should we rely on a footnote in one article by
1517:Wow. If anything needs a {{fact}} tag, it's this.
2723:
2635:while addressing the reasons put forth in the OP
2560:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
914:has some possible wiki link suggestions for the
2554:This old and tedious debate does emphatically
1341:Waw (or Vav) was originally pronounced as in
708:seems to apply, and it might be against our
395:I don't think that it something specific to
362:would seem to me that this definition would
2245:group of letters which form this alphabet (
2079:“Abjad” is the Maltese word for “white”. --
2057:I just moved the article back to Abjad. --
287:of making us figure it out by the column:
2614:unless there is a good reason for doing so
1715:Good work, this edited version is ok :) --
1376:how Hebrew was pronounced 2000 years ago.
2612:says existing MOS should not be changed,
2584:particular article, so, on the contrary,
956:article. I put the three examples under
1313:This topic does not belong here, but to
1026:Abjad Definition from Daniels and Bright
2672:Mandai - אויע (generaly a, u, i, e)
1169:Central-Eastern Arabian Peninsual: or
383:Abjad is not actually mentioned on the
106:This article falls within the scope of
19:
2767:Top-importance Writing system articles
2724:
918:article, and they have been placed on
757:2A02:587:2933:B300:B57C:79F4:1311:39E6
665:2A02:587:2933:B300:9CDF:CD94:2D1A:80A0
601:2A02:587:2933:B300:9CDF:CD94:2D1A:80A0
546:2A02:587:2933:B300:9CDF:CD94:2D1A:80A0
290:Modern abjads have also been used for
2133:Arabic words do not begin with vowels
1372:but not for the reason given. Nobody
134:Knowledge:WikiProject Writing systems
2347:Abjad#structure of Semitic languages
219:This article is within the scope of
137:Template:WikiProject Writing systems
15:
2777:Low-importance Linguistics articles
2592:where this discussion belongs (per
2153:i.e. it can be pronounced two ways.
935:Abjad (linguistics) vs. Abjad order
852:User:pv000/Abjad numerology (draft)
49:It is of interest to the following
13:
2208:I changed the text from "The name
1410:Hebrew with the pre-1945 spelling.
1036:In a consonantary, here called an
994:abgadavazhatikalamansapatzqareshet
912:automated Knowledge link suggester
473:Objections to Daniels's definition
14:
2793:
1473:Arabic_alphabet#Abjad.C4.AB_order
239:Knowledge:WikiProject Linguistics
2782:WikiProject Linguistics articles
2737:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
242:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
206:
196:
175:
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
2762:C-Class Writing system articles
1589:Wait a minute. If an abjad has
259:This article has been rated as
154:This article has been rated as
2747:C-Class level-5 vital articles
2696:13:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
2539:) 23:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
1021:22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
2718:14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
2497:19:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
2451:05:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
2432:17:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
2409:06:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
2113:15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
1984:01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
1754:20:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
1737:08:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
1720:14:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1711:03:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1689:00:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1669:16:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
1497:21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1484:15:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
1467:- I don't have any ideas for
1381:15:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1317:. The topic is treated here:
1210:21:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
1105:04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
1089:14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
765:23:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
730:18:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
673:16:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
644:12:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
609:09:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
586:07:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
554:01:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
233:and see a list of open tasks.
2772:C-Class Linguistics articles
2616:, and to being it up on the
2225:18:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
2128:03:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
1364:14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1332:14:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
1303:21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
1286:20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1142:04:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
335:22:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
7:
2549:17:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
2517:The World's Writing Systems
2389:22:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
2361:21:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
2318:
2310:
2302:
2089:17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
2067:01:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
2049:20:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
2021:23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
1909:16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
1878:15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
1855:14:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
1155:03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
1123:19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
521:) 16:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
494:02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
109:WikiProject Writing systems
10:
2798:
2572:18:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
2282:21:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
2176:12:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
1822:21:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
1799:11:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
1784:11:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
1370:User:Asthenization-Creator
1368:I support the deletion by
1253:"As with all syllabaries"?
1234:14:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
1057:20:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
999:I've removed this because
374:15:47, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
265:project's importance scale
160:project's importance scale
2652:19:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
2588:talk page most certainly
2477:16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
2335:00:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
1963:21:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
1386:Cleanup issues - Feb 2007
1351:Biblical Hebrew#Phonology
1194:00:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
931:10:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
889:Baha'e religion and Abjad
843:or in a separate article
803:On Abjad (external link)
533:16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
469:14:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
391:13:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
258:
191:
153:
78:
57:
2558:belong here. Take it to
2193:22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
2147:15:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1935:15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
1319:786 (number)#In religion
1248:01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
982:22:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
966:22:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
947:21:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
795:09:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
350:14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
282:Connections with numbers
124:and/or leave a query at
2437:South Arabian vs Sabean
862:18:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
222:WikiProject Linguistics
140:Writing system articles
126:the project’s talk page
2732:C-Class vital articles
2253:. These six rulers of
1834:Clarification of intro
1682:
1643:as far as I know, the
1325:would be appropriate.
1239:Connections to numbers
997:
832:
692:de:Reinhard G. Lehmann
620:de:Reinhard G. Lehmann
1999:moved this page from
1677:
1114:(and this article at
988:
922:for your convenience.
823:
698:de:Konsonantenschrift
36:level-5 vital article
2345:Whose opinion is at
245:Linguistics articles
2683:. so I deleted it.
1653:Addition of vowels:
1632:Addition of vowels:
1618:Addition of vowels:
1116:abjad (linguistics)
2456:Hebrew derivatives
1321:. Maybe a link in
1260:na, ni, nu, ne, no
787:Abjad and Numogram
696:You had mentioned
214:Linguistics portal
45:content assessment
2669:Hebrew - אהוי
2622:reasonable person
2499:
2487:comment added by
2411:
2363:
2337:
1974:comment added by
1868:comment added by
1845:comment added by
1702:) or "the girl" (
1268:ka, sa, na, ha...
1196:
1018:
767:
755:comment added by
728:
717:
701:
675:
663:comment added by
642:
631:
611:
599:comment added by
584:
573:
556:
544:comment added by
523:
509:comment added by
496:
484:comment added by
320:
306:comment added by
279:
278:
275:
274:
271:
270:
170:
169:
166:
165:
2789:
2657:Matres Lectionis
2564:Florian Blaschke
2482:
2398:
2350:
2324:
2321:
2313:
2305:
2046:
2044:
2038:
1991:Undiscussed move
1986:
1951:J. R. R. Tolkien
1906:
1904:
1898:
1880:
1857:
1819:
1817:
1811:
1404:Avestan alphabet
1361:
1355:Hebrew phonology
1329:
1183:
1181:
1177:
1166:Levantines: or
1149:
1136:
1016:
905:Link suggestions
845:Abjad numerology
799:Re: strange link
750:
722:
713:
695:
658:
636:
627:
594:
578:
569:
563:
539:
522:
503:
479:
368:Aramaic alphabet
340:þis is awesome!
319:
300:
247:
246:
243:
240:
237:
216:
211:
210:
200:
193:
192:
187:
179:
172:
171:
142:
141:
138:
135:
132:
122:the project page
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
58:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
2797:
2796:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2722:
2721:
2703:
2701:Table overflows
2659:
2505:
2458:
2439:
2420:
2343:
2289:
2232:
2206:
2139:Cross Reference
2135:
2096:
2077:
2075:Maltese meaning
2040:
2034:
2033:
1993:
1969:
1947:
1900:
1894:
1893:
1863:
1840:
1836:
1813:
1807:
1806:
1772:
1676:
1674:This is madness
1571:mater lectionis
1388:
1359:
1339:
1327:
1311:
1301:
1284:
1255:
1241:
1217:
1203:
1163:Egyptians: or
1131:
1097:
1095:Primary meaning
1028:
974:
937:
908:
891:
871:fuzzy numbers.
801:
780:
561:
504:
475:
445:100–200–300–400
308:74.120.161.179
301:
284:
244:
241:
238:
235:
234:
212:
205:
185:
139:
136:
133:
131:Writing systems
130:
129:
118:writing systems
99:
92:
72:
70:Writing systems
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
2795:
2785:
2784:
2779:
2774:
2769:
2764:
2759:
2754:
2749:
2744:
2739:
2734:
2702:
2699:
2674:
2673:
2670:
2667:
2658:
2655:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2575:
2574:
2504:
2501:
2489:138.163.106.71
2457:
2454:
2438:
2435:
2419:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2392:
2391:
2342:
2339:
2293:98.177.211.210
2291:An anonymous (
2288:
2285:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2231:
2228:
2205:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2164:
2163:
2160:
2155:
2154:
2134:
2131:
2095:
2092:
2076:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2052:
2051:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1946:
1945:Worldwide View
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1882:
1881:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1771:
1770:A not a vowel?
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1729:Chalkieperfect
1675:
1672:
1663:
1662:
1657:
1656:
1649:
1648:
1636:
1635:
1628:
1627:
1622:
1621:
1614:
1613:
1604:
1603:
1600:Impure abjads:
1596:
1595:
1586:
1585:
1582:Impure abjads:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1564:
1563:
1560:Impure abjads:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1546:
1545:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1529:
1528:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1512:
1511:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1490:alphasyllabary
1486:
1479:in question. -
1457:
1456:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1440:
1439:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1422:
1421:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1396:
1395:
1387:
1384:
1338:
1335:
1323:Abjad numerals
1310:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1295:
1278:
1254:
1251:
1240:
1237:
1226:
1225:
1216:
1213:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1167:
1164:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1120:85.232.169.134
1118:or some such.
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1073:
1042:
1041:
1027:
1024:
996:
995:
986:The text was:
973:
970:
969:
968:
936:
933:
923:
907:
902:
893:Dear Pjacobi,
890:
887:
875:
874:
866:
864:
863:
856:
855:
848:
837:
822:
821:
806:Dear Pjacobi:
800:
797:
790:
789:
779:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
702:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
649:
648:
647:
646:
624:grammatologist
613:
612:
589:
588:
474:
471:
461:
460:
453:
446:
439:
432:
425:
418:
411:
393:
376:
354:
353:
352:
322:
321:
283:
280:
277:
276:
273:
272:
269:
268:
261:Low-importance
257:
251:
250:
248:
231:the discussion
218:
217:
201:
189:
188:
186:Low‑importance
180:
168:
167:
164:
163:
156:Top-importance
152:
146:
145:
143:
105:
104:
101:Writing portal
88:
76:
75:
73:Top‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2794:
2783:
2780:
2778:
2775:
2773:
2770:
2768:
2765:
2763:
2760:
2758:
2755:
2753:
2750:
2748:
2745:
2743:
2740:
2738:
2735:
2733:
2730:
2729:
2727:
2720:
2719:
2716:
2712:
2708:
2698:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2684:
2682:
2677:
2671:
2668:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2654:
2653:
2649:
2645:
2644:Firejuggler86
2636:
2632:
2628:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2607:
2603:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2583:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2546:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2528:
2524:
2522:
2518:
2513:
2509:
2500:
2498:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2479:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2469:75.103.235.18
2466:
2465:Hebrew script
2462:
2453:
2452:
2448:
2444:
2434:
2433:
2429:
2425:
2410:
2406:
2402:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2371:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2348:
2338:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2322:
2320:
2314:
2312:
2306:
2304:
2298:
2294:
2284:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2274:Nonstopdrivel
2272:ascertain).--
2264:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2230:Arabic legend
2227:
2226:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2204:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2161:
2157:
2156:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2130:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2115:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2101:
2091:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2059:Imperator3733
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2050:
2047:
2043:
2037:
2030:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2013:Imperator3733
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1976:79.144.83.243
1973:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1910:
1907:
1903:
1897:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1827:
1826:
1823:
1820:
1816:
1810:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1718:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1687:
1681:
1680:more vowels).
1671:
1670:
1667:
1659:
1658:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1624:
1623:
1619:
1616:
1615:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1583:
1580:
1579:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1485:
1482:
1477:
1476:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1454:
1451:
1450:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1434:
1433:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1383:
1382:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1365:
1362:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1334:
1333:
1330:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1201:Tet and theta
1195:
1191:
1187:
1173:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1144:
1143:
1140:
1129:Pronunciation
1124:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1090:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1076:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1023:
1022:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
993:
992:
991:
987:
984:
983:
980:
972:Hebrew abjad?
967:
964:
959:
955:
951:
950:
949:
948:
945:
940:
932:
930:
926:
921:
917:
913:
906:
901:
898:
894:
886:
883:
879:
873:
869:
868:
867:
861:
858:
857:
853:
849:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:
831:
827:
819:
818:
817:
814:
812:
807:
804:
796:
794:
788:
785:
784:
783:
766:
762:
758:
754:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
731:
726:
721:
716:
711:
707:
703:
699:
693:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
674:
670:
666:
662:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
645:
640:
635:
630:
625:
622:who is not a
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
591:
590:
587:
582:
577:
572:
567:
559:
558:
557:
555:
551:
547:
543:
535:
534:
530:
526:
520:
516:
512:
508:
500:
497:
495:
491:
487:
483:
470:
468:
464:
458:
454:
451:
447:
444:
440:
437:
433:
430:
426:
423:
419:
416:
412:
409:
405:
404:
403:
401:
398:
392:
390:
386:
381:
380:
375:
373:
369:
365:
359:
358:
351:
347:
343:
342:70.22.175.143
339:
338:
337:
336:
333:
327:
326:
317:
313:
309:
305:
297:
296:
295:
293:
288:
266:
262:
256:
253:
252:
249:
232:
228:
224:
223:
215:
209:
204:
202:
199:
195:
194:
190:
184:
181:
178:
174:
173:
161:
157:
151:
148:
147:
144:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
60:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
2704:
2685:
2678:
2675:
2660:
2642:
2634:
2630:
2626:
2617:
2613:
2605:
2601:
2589:
2585:
2581:
2555:
2529:
2525:
2520:
2519:(1996), and
2516:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2483:— Preceding
2480:
2464:
2459:
2440:
2421:
2381:Lockesdonkey
2376:
2372:
2344:
2316:
2308:
2300:
2297:contribution
2290:
2270:
2262:
2242:
2233:
2222:Wiki Wikardo
2213:
2209:
2207:
2202:
2165:
2136:
2116:
2097:
2078:
2041:
2035:
2029:Consonantary
2005:Consonantary
1995:On July 17,
1994:
1948:
1922:
1901:
1895:
1870:96.242.156.9
1847:96.242.156.9
1837:
1814:
1808:
1787:
1773:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1683:
1678:
1664:
1652:
1644:
1640:
1631:
1617:
1608:
1599:
1590:
1581:
1570:
1559:
1541:
1524:
1507:
1489:
1468:
1464:
1452:
1435:
1417:
1407:
1391:
1373:
1367:
1342:
1340:
1312:
1267:
1262:in Japanese
1259:
1256:
1242:
1227:
1218:
1204:
1145:
1132:
1112:abjadi order
1098:
1068:
1064:
1045:
1043:
1037:
1030:
1029:
1005:abjadi order
998:
989:
985:
975:
941:
938:
924:
909:
899:
895:
892:
884:
880:
876:
865:
828:
824:
815:
808:
805:
802:
791:
781:
778:Strange link
751:— Preceding
659:— Preceding
595:— Preceding
565:
540:— Preceding
536:
501:
498:
486:69.112.64.79
476:
465:
462:
459:800–900–1000
456:
449:
442:
435:
428:
421:
414:
407:
394:
382:
378:
377:
363:
360:
356:
355:
328:
324:
323:
289:
285:
260:
220:
155:
107:
51:WikiProjects
34:
2707:Mahmudmasri
2541:Wikifan2744
2533:Wikifan2744
2424:GreenGibbon
2401:Mahmudmasri
2353:Mahmudmasri
2327:Mahmudmasri
2218:Terminology
1970:—Preceding
1864:—Preceding
1841:—Preceding
1698:"the boy" (
1594:diphthong).
1186:Mahmudmasri
1001:as it stood
720:LiliCharlie
634:LiliCharlie
576:LiliCharlie
505:—Preceding
480:—Preceding
452:500–600–700
438:60–70–80–90
431:20–30–40–50
366:, say, the
302:—Preceding
236:Linguistics
227:linguistics
183:Linguistics
114:WikiProject
2726:Categories
2711:Wkee4ager
2370:nonce word
2255:Midianites
2081:88.78.4.51
1955:GeorgeTSLC
1746:1700-talet
1661:occurred).
1508:Etymology:
1315:Numerology
1048:is a full
1013:Charles P.
841:Numerology
511:Wakantanka
443:qaraschat:
2618:article's
2295:) made a
2287:Etymology
2201:The name
1923:syllabary
1889:syllabary
1666:Cbdorsett
1378:Cbdorsett
1176:/ˈæbdʒəd/
1148:/ˈabdʒad/
1135:/ˈæbdʒæd/
1072:alphabet.
1054:FourthAve
1050:syllabary
979:Cbdorsett
963:Cbdorsett
954:collation
920:this page
836:included.
706:WP:FRINGE
450:thachidh:
408:abdschad:
292:isopsephy
39:is rated
2606:changing
2485:unsigned
2373:tashātum
2105:Faro0485
2100:Hieratic
2094:Hieratic
1972:unsigned
1866:unsigned
1843:unsigned
1704:la chica
1700:el chico
1542:Origins:
1525:Origins:
1360:Andreas
1328:Andreas
1272:hiragana
1264:hiragana
1207:Zargulon
1180:/ˈæbɡəd/
1102:AnonMoos
944:Macrakis
753:unsigned
690:Reading
661:unsigned
597:unsigned
542:unsigned
519:contribs
507:unsigned
482:unsigned
429:kalaman:
387:page. --
372:Calieber
332:Glenford
316:contribs
304:unsigned
2631:opposed
2602:sources
2461:Yiddish
2341:Dubious
2098:On the
1997:Crissov
1744:common.
1717:Lo'oris
1686:Lo'oris
1494:Oghmoir
1481:Oghmoir
1469:abugida
1453:Header:
1436:Header:
1418:Header:
1392:Header:
1245:LakeHMM
1152:LakeHMM
1086:Oghmoir
1046:abugida
929:LinkBot
860:Pjacobi
793:Pjacobi
710:WP:NPOV
564:(2020)
562:Meletis
467:Pjacobi
457:dazagh:
441:قرشت –
436:sa'fas:
434:سعفص –
427:كلمن –
415:hawwaz:
410:1–2–3–4
406:ابجد –
364:exclude
263:on the
158:on the
41:C-class
2688:Nngnna
2681:yidish
2610:WP:VAR
2598:WP:ERA
2594:WP:VAR
2443:92slim
2319:ʾabǧad
2311:hiǧāʾī
2303:ʾabǧad
2263:أبو جد
2259:Arabic
2251:Midian
2168:Mathae
2120:Amilah
1927:Thnidu
1791:Yobmod
1776:Yobmod
1345:, see
1139:Gailtb
1017:(Mirv)
900:pv000
885:pv000
816:pv000
455:ضظغ –
448:ثخذ –
424:8–9–10
422:hutti:
420:حطى –
413:هوز –
397:Bahá'í
389:Mr2001
385:Bahá'í
47:scale.
2418:Chart
2214:abjad
2210:abjad
2203:abjad
2011:? --
2009:Abjad
2001:Abjad
1708:Nik42
1696:l chc
1552:well.
1465:abjad
1408:maybe
1374:knows
1309:7-8-6
1231:Dveej
1150:. --
1038:abjad
1009:moved
958:abjad
916:Abjad
525:wakan
417:5–6–7
299:term.
28:This
2715:talk
2692:talk
2648:talk
2596:and
2586:this
2582:this
2568:talk
2562:. --
2545:talk
2537:talk
2521:they
2493:talk
2473:talk
2447:talk
2428:talk
2405:talk
2385:talk
2377:only
2357:talk
2331:talk
2278:talk
2189:talk
2172:talk
2143:talk
2124:talk
2109:talk
2085:talk
2063:talk
2045:mata
2017:talk
1980:talk
1959:talk
1931:talk
1905:mata
1874:talk
1851:talk
1818:mata
1795:talk
1780:talk
1750:talk
1733:talk
1645:only
1609:only
1349:and
1343:wood
1298:talk
1293:mglg
1281:talk
1276:mglg
1190:talk
1069:mat*
1052:. --
1007:was
925:Tip:
761:talk
725:talk
715:Love
669:talk
639:talk
629:Love
605:talk
581:talk
571:Love
550:talk
529:talk
515:talk
490:talk
346:talk
312:talk
112:, a
2556:not
2247:Ph.
2185:Jec
2003:to
1641:and
1492:. -
1428:it.
1337:Waw
1270:in
1178:or
1065:mat
1044:An
910:An
255:Low
150:Top
2728::
2694:)
2686:--
2650:)
2627:no
2590:is
2570:)
2547:)
2495:)
2475:)
2449:)
2430:)
2407:)
2399:--
2387:)
2359:)
2351:--
2333:)
2325:--
2280:)
2261::
2191:)
2174:)
2145:)
2126:)
2111:)
2087:)
2065:)
2039:ak
2019:)
1982:)
1961:)
1933:)
1899:ak
1876:)
1853:)
1812:ak
1797:)
1782:)
1752:)
1735:)
1591:no
1475:)
1357:.
1192:)
1184:--
1182:.
1137:?
763:)
671:)
607:)
552:)
531:)
517:•
492:)
402::
348:)
318:)
314:•
2713:(
2705:@
2690:(
2646:(
2637:.
2566:(
2543:(
2535:(
2491:(
2471:(
2445:(
2426:(
2403:(
2383:(
2355:(
2329:(
2276:(
2243:?
2187:(
2170:(
2141:(
2122:(
2107:(
2083:(
2061:(
2042:s
2036:j
2015:(
1978:(
1957:(
1929:(
1902:s
1896:j
1872:(
1849:(
1815:s
1809:j
1793:(
1778:(
1748:(
1731:(
1300:)
1296:(
1283:)
1279:(
1188:(
854:.
847:.
759:(
727:)
723:(
718:—
667:(
641:)
637:(
632:—
603:(
583:)
579:(
574:—
548:(
527:(
513:(
488:(
344:(
310:(
267:.
162:.
128:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
