Talk:Abjad

message: 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 of making us figure it out by the column: 
Modern abjads have also been used for isopsephy, 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.
: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 term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.161.179‎ (talk • contribs) 
...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.
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 not the person to do it, but this paragraph needs to be clarified. Glenford 22:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Connections with numbers

message: 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.
*Abjad and Numogram
Pjacobi 09:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange link 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abjad article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 10:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abjad|Link suggestions]] 

message: 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.
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. --Macrakis 21:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 collation article.  I put the three examples under abjad 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. Cbdorsett 22:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abjad (linguistics) vs. Abjad order

message: 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. Cbdorsett 22:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew abjad? 

message: 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? AnonMoos 04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, make this a disambiguation page, and have the article on abjadi order at abjadi order (and this article at abjad (linguistics) or some such. 85.232.169.134 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary meaning

message: Hebrew tet is homologous to greek theta. It wasn't removed or turned into a vowel. Zargulon 21:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tet and theta 

message: 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 this section; and the term "mater lectionis" together with its plural variant "matres lectionis". Here is the sentence as it now stands:
:"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.
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 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. Dveej 14:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for clarification of lead sentence in section "Impure Abjads" 

message: 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.  --LakeHMM 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connections to numbers 

message: 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 each syllable, not necessarily by hiding vowel sounds. Many syllabaries contain different symbols with the same consonant sound but different vowel sounds (e.g. na, ni, nu, ne, no in Japanese hiragana), and also different symbols with the same vowel sound but different consonant sounds (e.g. ka, sa, na, ha... in hiragana). Thus each symbol represents the syllable, not just the consonant (or vowel). Am I wrong, or should the lead be corrected? --mglg(talk) 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody voiced a differing opinion, I will correct the lead regarding syllabaries. -- mglg(talk) 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As with all syllabaries"? 

message: This topic does not belong here, but to Numerology. The topic is treated here: 786 (number)#In religion. Maybe a link in Abjad numerals would be appropriate.  Andreas  (T) 14:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7-8-6 

message: Waw (or Vav) was originally pronounced [w] as in wood, see Hebrew alphabet#Vowels and consonants in Ancient Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew#Phonology. The [v] pronunciation is modern. The [w] pronunciation is still common among Teimanim and some Mizrahim, see Hebrew phonology.  Andreas  (T) 14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waw 

message: 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 more vowels).
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!
--Lo'oris 00:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 l chc "the boy" (el chico) or "the girl" (la chica)?  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 Nik42 03:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, this edited version is ok :) --Lo'oris 14:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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. Chalkieperfect (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 common.1700-talet (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is madness 

message: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.156.9 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 what used to pass for anthropology in the 19th century.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.156.9 (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intent of the word "unusual" in the intro was meant to compare the term Abjad to the term "syllabary", 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. – jaksmata 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 syllabary to a variety of scripts that Daniels showed to have significant typological differences.  --Thnidu (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of intro 

message: 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 J. R. R. Tolkien did his inventing, he always drew on his philological knowledge, and I think it's fascinating that a European Christian produced an impure abjab! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which I have proceeded to remove. Fascinating as it might be to some, a pop culture reference is hardly appropriate (much less useful) here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.83.243 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide View 

message: On July 17, Crissov moved this page from Abjad to Consonantary.  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 Abjad? -- Imperator3733 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 7,320,000 for "abjad". My feeling is that it would be best to move it back. If it is going to stay at Consonantary, 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. – jaksmata 20:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved the article back to Abjad. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed move 

message: “Abjad” is the Maltese word for “white”. --88.78.4.51 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maltese meaning 

message: On the Hieratic 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 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. Faro0485 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hieratic 

message: ""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.Cross Reference (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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), i.e. it can be pronounced two ways.
#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. (This is mainly due to the fact that noticing this stop is difficult for speakers of Western languages.) 
#If a vowel precedes this hamzat al-wasl, it is not pronounced. For example Abu al-Hawl (the Sphinx) is pronounced "abulhawl", not *"abualhawl".
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.)--Mathae (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please replace this example with one that does contain some long vowels. Jec (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic words do not begin with vowels 

message: I changed the text from "The name abjad itself derives from the first four letters of the Arabic alphabet" to "The name abjad itself derives from the Arabic word for alphabet" before noticing it was discussed further down in the Terminology section. Should that sentence in the lede be eliminated altogether? —Wiki Wikardo 18:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name ''abjad'' 

message: 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 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.
::According to an Arab legend, it is said that the ( six )? group of letters which form this alphabet (Ph.: 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 Midian. These six rulers of Midianites had devised the order of the alphabet according to their names. Abjad (originally, Abu Jad, Arabic: أبو جد, meaning great grandfather) was the eldest of them all.
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 ascertain).--Nonstopdrivel (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic legend 

message: An anonymous (98.177.211.210) made a contribution which was misleading towards the origin of the word .  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   was an attempt to order letters together according to their similar shapes. Arabic letters are still used in the   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... --Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Whose opinion is at Abjad#structure of Semitic languages that claims the Abjad orthography improves word root recognition? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessary. For example, هاتف feels like it's from هتاف "chanting", unrelated to the communication machine "telephone". --Mahmudmasri (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I added a chart of extinct and extant abjads. Please help to improve it (add citations, improve my style, etc..)
GreenGibbon (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart

message: Aren't both the same? I think there is a duplicate mention in this article. --92slim (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Arabian vs Sabean 

message: Yiddish 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 Hebrew script is used for these languages, so I don't know whether to correct the table or not.   Please advise or execute the change. --75.103.235.18 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew derivatives 

message: 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.
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, 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.
Finally, the article is largely based on the work of Daniels and Bright's The World's Writing Systems (1996), and they use the modern nonsectarian date designations "CE" and "BCE" ("common era" and "before the common era").
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 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 Wikipedia administrators.
A more general decision to switch exclusively (with a few exceptions) to nonsectarian date designations in Wikipedia 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 for each article has been allowed to stand.  Perhaps it's time to again revisit that original administrative decision. Wikifan2744 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This old and tedious debate does emphatically not belong here. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 this particular article, so, on the contrary, this talk page most certainly is where this discussion belongs (per WP:VAR and WP:ERA, 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 sources for the article use the BCE/CE convention, therefore the original author of the article made a point of changing 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 ;) ). WP:VAR says existing MOS should not be changed, unless there is a good reason for doing so, and to being it up on the article's talk page. Two reasons have been put forth, which I think an average nonpartison reasonable person would concede are valid reasons. Since Wikipedia'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, no exceptions - there is no such guideline that says no exceptions). Therefore, any editor who woulded be opposed to such a change should put forth their reasons for why the change should not be made while addressing the reasons put forth in the OP. 
Firejuggler86 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  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 

message: I added Matres Lectionis count to the table, I wasn't sure about Identifing them as the names [of the charecters] are two long [to use], using each script [in its own row] is kind of unhelpful for the reader, and useing only one [script in all rows] is biased. For the record here they are in Hebrew Script.
*Syriac, Arabic, Aramaic (Imperial), Pahlavi, Sogdian   -   אוי (generaly a, u, i)
*Hebrew   -   אהוי 
*Mandai   -   אויע (generaly a, u, i, e) 
In addition the vowels of Ugaritic are a,i,u. a replaces aleph and the two others are added at the end.
Mandai is actually an alphabeth, somewhat prefigurating yidish. so I deleted it.
--Nngnna (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matres Lectionis 

message: @Mahmudmasri 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. –  Wkee4ager  ( talk 14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table overflows