Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The abagadary vagary

Expand Messages
  • B.E.Colless
    ... Thanks to Jim for raising the question of abagadary , and to Victor for answering it correctly. Victor s use of elementary is appropriate, as element
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Jim West
      > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:29 PM
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries
      >
      > May I ask a question?
      >
      > In the subject line the word "abagadaries" is used. Is this some sort
      > of neologism or is it some sort of really profoundly corrupt version of
      > "abecediary"?
      >
      > Thanks for aiding my enquiry.

      > Jim West, ThD
      >

      > From: "victor" <victor@...>
      > Reply-To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:54:21 +0200
      > To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: RE: [ANE-2] Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries
      >
      > Seems Quite Elementary, it's a semiticization of ABeCeDiary, replacing the
      > C with Gimmel. Cute of Brian to have thought of it.
      > Victor
      >
      Thanks to Jim for raising the question of "abagadary", and to Victor for
      answering it correctly.

      Victor's use of "elementary" is appropriate, as "element" is supposed to
      come from LMN (the sequence that starts the second half of the
      Phoenician/Hebrew alphabet).

      Yes, it is my own neologism. We have previously discussed Peter Daniels's
      "abjad" for "alphabet" (I said I would prefer to say "ab(a)gad"). And
      "abagadary" is made acrophonic-ly from 'Alp Bayt Gaml Dalt.

      I have to say that none of the dictionaries (Oxford, Collins, NZ) in my home
      have "abecediary" or "abecedary" (a word I first encountered in Demsky's
      study of the Izbet Sartah Ostracon, as "A Proto-Canaanite abecedary", Tel
      Aviv 4, 1977,14-27, and I used it in the title of my first paper on the
      proto-alphabet, published in Abr-Nahrain 26, 1988 without using that word,
      which had puzzled people at the language-and-literature conference).

      It is reasonable to use "abecedary" to apply to a copy of the Hebrew and
      even the Greek alphabet (though it really belongs to the Roman alphabet),
      because G (boomerang) produced Roman C.

      So, "abagadary" is another *vagary* of mine (a "silly idea"), but I like it
      because it is pretty 'fonetic', unlike <eibiisiid(iy)ariy>). All the a's in
      abagadary are sounded the same (unlike "vagary" = veigeriy).

      OK, even when I myself say the word, it will probably come out as
      <aebagaederiy>!

      Brian Colless PhD ThD
    • victor
      ... the ... Thanks to Jim for raising the question of abagadary , and to Victor for answering it correctly. Victor s use of elementary is appropriate, as
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > Seems Quite Elementary, it's a semiticization of ABeCeDiary, replacing
        the
        > C with Gimmel. Cute of Brian to have thought of it.
        > Victor
        >
        Thanks to Jim for raising the question of "abagadary", and to Victor for
        answering it correctly.

        Victor's use of "elementary" is appropriate, as "element" is supposed to
        come from LMN (the sequence that starts the second half of the
        Phoenician/Hebrew alphabet).

        That's precisely why I used it.

        ABiGDor Victor Hurowitz
        BGU
      • Peter T. Daniels
        Abjad is NOT an equivalent of alphabet. At its first appearance in print I note that Alan Corré suggested the pronunciation abgad (JAOS 110: 730 n. 7).
        Message 3 of 20 , Sep 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          "Abjad" is NOT an equivalent of "alphabet."

          At its first appearance in print I note that Alan Corré suggested the pronunciation "abgad" (JAOS 110: 730 n. 7).
          --
          Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


          ----- Original Message ----
          From: B.E.Colless <briancolless@...>
          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:34:19 PM
          Subject: [ANE-2] The abagadary vagary


          Yes, it is my own neologism. We have previously discussed Peter Daniels's
          "abjad" for "alphabet" (I said I would prefer to say "ab(a)gad"). And
          "abagadary" is made acrophonic-ly from 'Alp Bayt Gaml Dalt.
        • B.E.Colless
          ... Yes, Peter, you are right, of course. The word exists to distinguish the Semitic-type script in which each character represesents a consonant. So it should
          Message 4 of 20 , Sep 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            > From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
            > Reply-To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 04:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
            > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] The abagadary vagary
            >
            > "Abjad" is NOT an equivalent of "alphabet."

            Yes, Peter, you are right, of course. The word exists to distinguish the
            Semitic-type script in which each character represesents a consonant.

            So it should be called a "'bgd", pronounced with no vowels (like "Ms").

            No, that's me being "silly" again (cognate with German "selig", blessed,
            mystically blissful, in the seventh heaven of delight, away with the ...
            angels, and with my Syriac mystic, John of Dalyatha).

            Even though 'bgd is written without vowels, that does not mean it is
            pronounced without vowels; the reader supplies the vowels in texts written
            in such scripts. (And I pronounce "Ms" the same as "Miss").

            The special meaning of "alphabet" is the Greco-Roman type, which includes
            vowel-signs as well as consonant-letters.

            But I also like to call this a "vocalic" alphabet, as opposed to a
            "consonantal" alphabet. We should be allowed to talk about the Hebrew
            alphabet, and the Syriac alphabet, when we are not being technical.

            And an abgad is also a "consonantary", not a "syllabary" (in which each
            character is a "syllabogram", representing a particular syllable, as in the
            Creto-Cyprian scripts).

            And an abugida is a simplified syllabary (Sanskrit and Ethiopic, both of
            which developed from the Semitic abgad/consonantary). You could say that the
            Hebrew and Arabic scriptures, with vowel-marks added to the consonants, have
            such a system of writing. (If we don't classify them that way, what would be
            the correct designation, in a single word?)

            The ancient Mesopotamian (Sumero-Akkadian) and Canaanite ("Byblos
            pseudo-hieroglyphic") scripts were logosyllabaries (the signs stand for
            words or syllables).

            The Egyptian hieroglyphic system is a special case: a "logoconsonantary"
            (normally no vowels are indicated).

            And eventually it will be common knowledge that the Semitic "proto-alphabet"
            was not simply a 'abgad/ consonantary, but a logoconsonantary, a very
            simplified or reduced imitation of the Egyptian system.

            And so, an "abagadary" is a "table" (a paradigm?) of the Semitic "alphabet",
            at any stage of its development. And thus I decree.

            For an example of such a table of the proto-alphabet, found in Thebes, with
            the letters not in any particular order, go to:

            cryptcracker.blogspot.com
            ("The alphabet when young")

            (I would like to get a good copy of it into our ANE-2 photo-album)

            And please note that Emile Puech has informed me that he drew attention to
            it "in a lecture at the first congress of Phenician and Punic Studies, in
            Rome in 1979".

            And do we need a word "abugidary"?

            Brian Colless

            > At its first appearance in print I note that Alan Corré suggested the
            > pronunciation "abgad" (JAOS 110: 730 n. 7).
            > --
            > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message ----
            > From: B.E.Colless <briancolless@...>
            > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:34:19 PM
            > Subject: [ANE-2] The abagadary vagary
            >
            >
            > Yes, it is my own neologism. We have previously discussed Peter Daniels's
            > "abjad" for "alphabet" (I said I would prefer to say "ab(a)gad"). And
            > "abagadary" is made acrophonic-ly from 'Alp Bayt Gaml Dalt.
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Peter T. Daniels
            An abugida is NOT a simplified syllabary. No syllabary has ever given rise to a script of any other type. Pointed Hebrew/Arabic/Syriac are alphabets. --
            Message 5 of 20 , Sep 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              An abugida is NOT a "simplified syllabary." No syllabary has ever given rise to a script of any other type.

              Pointed Hebrew/Arabic/Syriac are alphabets.
              --
              Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


              ----- Original Message ----
              From: B.E.Colless <briancolless@...>
              To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2006 8:35:45 AM
              Subject: Re: [ANE-2] The abagadary vagary


              And an abugida is a simplified syllabary (Sanskrit and Ethiopic, both of
              which developed from the Semitic abgad/consonantary). You could say that the
              Hebrew and Arabic scriptures, with vowel-marks added to the consonants, have
              such a system of writing. (If we don't classify them that way, what would be
              the correct designation, in a single word?)
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.