Re: OT-ish: txt - Could it replace Standard Written English?

On Monday 03 March 2003 7:31 pm, Tim May wrote:
> Joe wrote at 2003-03-03 17:31:42 (+0000)
>
>  > 1. 'txt' is an abjad.  It only uses vowels when they seem
>  > neccesary.  'e' is especially often dropped, as in the name.
>
> Certainly abjads tend to drop vowels, but is that their defining
> characteristic?  My understanding is that it's the contrast between
> consonantal letters and vocalic diacritics that makes an abjad, and I
> don't see any reason why txt vowels would be considered diacritic.
>
> Mind you, I'm not sure that I have any absolutely reliable principle
> for discriminating between diacritics and letters.
According to Omniglot:

 Abjads, or consonant alphabets, represent consonants only, or consonants plus
some vowels. Full vowel indication (vocalisation) can be added, usually by
means of diacritics, but this is not common. Most of abjads, with the
exception of Divehi hakura and Ugaritic, are written from right to left.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/alphabetic.htm

It says 'usually' indicated by diacritics.  I think an ability to drop vowels
is the defining Characteristic.

Reply