Re: Optimum number of symbols

John Cowan writes:
 > David G. Durand scripsit:
 >
 > > In Semitic languages (like Egyptian, Arabic, Hebrew, etc.) the vowel
 > > inventory is not especially small, most have 5-8 vowel systems if I
 > > recall. However the grammatical function of vowels is relatively
 > > light, and they are generally predictable with little to no ambiguity
 > > in context.
 >
 > However, the Arabic script is used for a great many non-Semitic languages,
 > often with great pain.  In Mongolian (which is also an abjad, and is
 > derived from Arabic or something like it by several steps), [...]

Hardly necessary, but for some reason I felt like taking a brief look
into its ancestry.

The _Concise Compendium of the World's Languages_ (Campbell, 1995)
says

!If the letters are viewed horizontally, their derivation (via an
!Uighur intermediary) from the Syriac Estrangelo script becomes
!plain.

omniglot.com says Uighur came from Sogdian, but either way it ends up
coming from Aramaic (like Arabic), and thus from Phoenician, and thus
from Proto-Canaanite.


Incidentally, as listed here, it doesn't _look_ like an abjad - there
appear to be seperate letters for vowels and consonants (although many
of the vowels look the same, especially in final position.
omniglot.com lists it as an alphabet rather than an abjad, too.  We
are talking about the same script, I suppose?  Or do I misunderstand
the term abjad?

Reply