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

RE: [ANE-2] The abagadary vagary

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.