The idea that modern writing scripts trace to either Egypt or China stopped me in my tracks, but a quick tour through Wikipedia tells me it’s basically true!
However, based on my memory, I can count one exception. The Cherokee syllabary was invented by a single illiterate individual in the 19th Century.
There's also Korean writing, which legendarily was invented by a Korean king to give them what China had. Which, as the case of Sequoyah proves, is possible.
Well it's mostly, but not entirely, correct. An ABJAD is in fact an ALPHABET. A consonantal alphabet. He failed to mention this (maybe he didn't know it). And it was invented by the Canaanites (developed extensively from the hieroglyphics). Our alphabets therefore trace back to Canaan, and more particularly to modern-day Lebanon where the Phoenicians spread their version of the alphabet from.
Hi Jack, You seem to be using a different definition of abjad vs alphabet than Rogers does in his book, and therefore the one I'm using in the article. That's fair enough, but it doesn't make Rogers' definition incorrect given the terms that he is using.
Hi Colin, thanks for the response. As far as I know, Rogers basically defines it as a script that writes mostly consonants, but not vowels. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. An abjad does not use vowels, but this doesn't make it a non-alphabet. While I take Roger's definition (following Daniel) to be flawed, it is really the inference you drew from it (which many others also have) that I take some issue with. And that is that an abjad is non-alphabetical in its symbology/ that it uses a different kind of representation than "true alphabets." This just isn't true. From my other comment further down below--
"The distinction between alphabet and abjad is controversial because it often leads to the misapprehension that an abjad is a fundamentally different writing system. This is false. They are fundamentally the same: they each use discrete symbols (letters) to represent basic sounds (as opposed to the syllabaries that came before, which represented whole consonants instead). The only difference is that an abjad (mostly) lacks vowels. But the addition of vowels (done by the Greeks) didn't change the actual system of writing, which they had adopted from the Phoenicians. Instead, they just added more of the *same kinds of symbols* but which now represented *more sounds* (vowels). So, given that they used the same manner of symbolizing used by the Phoenician alphabet (and the Proto-Sinaitic script that it originated from), the Greek alphabet cannot be said to be the first alphabet; it can only be said to be the first *vowel-containing* alphabet."
I remember learning the origins of the letter A as a child too and being thoroughly fascinated by it as well! And I've learned languages where I can too - French, German, Latin, Spanish, Japanese, a bit of Welsh, random bits of Romanian... I loved learning the writing system in Japanese too, which is partly what interested me, and the chance to learn a non-European language.
I've gone deaf, annoyingly, so I've been learning British Sign Language and it's fascinating - in some ways, it draws on symbols like Chinese, in that you sort of show/mime the "thing". Others involve a bit of finger-spelling (but you could never finger-spell a whole language - it'd take forever).
A really interesting example are the signs for silver and gold. They begin with either a finger-spelled g or s, then both are followed by a sign which involves sort of waggling your fingers to signify something sparkly. Isn't that ingenious? And all invented by Deaf people!
Sign languages have their own grammars, so BSL puts the question word at the end of the sentence - just like I was used to doing in Japanese. But there's even more to sign than that because if you ask a question, you lean forwards and raise your eyebrows to signify it's a question! It's so fascinating to learn, but also bloody useful when I'm struggling to follow what someone's saying. In fact, my youngest brother is selective mute and although he won't verbalise, he's being taught sign so for the first time in years we can talk to each other! Pinker's theory of "the language instinct" is potent.
Thank you for sharing that, Helen! The structure of signed languages is extremely interesting, and hasn't had nearly enough attention from linguists over the years.
Very true. I think it's probably because Deaf communities can be quite closed and don't want to be under the microscope. But it's interesting - I was watching something not-British on telly recently where someone signed and I recognised some of it. It's interesting because the “mime” aspect of some signs will work between some cultures.
I suppose it's a bit like recognising the Chinese character for “tea” - as soon as you realise it's a little teahouse, you can't unsee it, even if you're not Chinese!
I went to college with a guy who'd learned Irish Sign Language and a bit of BSL. He said learning American Sign Language was much easier because ISL and ASL are both originally based on French Sign Language. He could talk to LSF users even though he knew no French!
I think BSL and Canadian Sign Language as I signed "where's my shopping?" During a meeting as an example of sign, and there was Canada's woman there who is a sign interpreter and she knew exactly what I meant!
Interestingly, there's regional variation in sign, so if you watch videos from the Exeter school, some signs are different from other schools. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised it has those localisms because language does, but also, you have Deaf children in school talking to each other and local signs evolve.
Another great article. Memories of stretching out on the floor while everyone listened to radio dramas while I read the 1940s Britannica are priceless.
Fascinating story indeed. And it easy to understand how and why the Roman alphabet adopted from the Greek was later adopted by Anglo-Saxons people converted to Christianism.
But what about the old English runic alphabet ? How and from who did the German tribes get it ?
The origin of the runic alphabets is a very interesting question, and one which is still being debated by scholars. They seem to have come from some Greek-derived alphabet, but which one (and under what circumstances) is still a mystery!
When I was seven years old, I was interested in dinosaurs. And then volcanoes. In the back of the volcano book was a page on geothermal energy: generating electricity from the heat of the earth (often close to volcanoes). Wow! What a cool concept. And then, the first oil crisis hit. People waited in line for hours to get gas. Adults were all worked up about it. I knew then that energy would be a big deal for my adult life, and that we needed to find sustainable ways to harvest it (like geothermal energy). Here I am, 50 years later, still working in that field of sustainable energy.
Wonderful! It just goes to show you: sometimes the kids know very early exactly what they want to do... and parents should thank their lucky stars every kid doesn't fixate on astronaut for too long.
Basque (Euskara) didn't evolve in isolation, but all of its relatives died off. I believe it became a written language when the Basque region became part of the Roman Empire, and this is first writing system was the Latin alphabet.
One interesting fact about Basque is that it doesn't really have an 'f' sound; as a result many Spanish words have an 'h' where the Latin root had an 'f'. For example: ferrum -> hierro..
Anthony is right! I'll just add that the f => h change from Latin to Spanish may not be due to Basque influence, but could also have been driven by influence of other, Indo-European languages, or due to tendencies and variation internal to Latin.
In your studies, have you learned any of the languages that were written with cuneiform? I'm wondering about the various symbols they used. In the Romance/Germanic languages, the Latin alphbet is used for all of them, and a given letter used for pretty much the same sound in all the languages. So for example, the letter T is pronounced the same in English, Latin, French, and Norwegian (yes, I know there are exceptions, but the basic idea is true.) Now, what I understand about cuneiform is that the various signs stood for syllables -- ba, da, ta, ma etc. Were the same signs used for the same sounds in Akkadian as in Sumerian? I can't quite see the various peoples re-assigning new sounds to old signs, but folks have done stranger things. (I believe some Latin letters in Irish Gaelic have been re-assigned that way.)
I've not studied any of the languages written with a cuneiform script but, from what I've read, the situation is extremely complicated there: there are multiple cuneiform writing systems, with different structures, used to write languages from entirely different families.
But if you think you need all 26 letters, you might read Georges Perec "A void" or "la Disparition" in the original French. An entire book, both in the original and in the translation, without the letter e.
That description of Egyptian hieroglyphs reminds me somewhat of Chinese characters, with characters read both for meaning and sound, and homophones and near-homophones distinguished in writing by radicals (e.g. 風 feng 'wind', 瘋 feng 'mad', 楓 feng 'maple'). And another parallel is that Chinese characters too were simplified into pure phonemes when the Japanese got hold of them (although, as I'm sure you know, they also kept the originals). It would seem that those who invent writing independently prefer logographic scripts, and the desire of foreign borrowers not to have to reinvent from scratch is what leads to syllabaries, abjads and alphabets.
I don't know what happened to my original comment, so I'll just retype the gist of it here. While your write-up is mostly accurate, and highly informative, it does contain a grave error as well: contrary to what you stated, an ABJAD is in fact an ALPHABET. A consonantal alphabet. You failed to mention this (perhaps you didn't know it). The distinction between alphabet and abjad is controversial because it often leads to the misapprehension that an abjad is a fundamentally different writing system. This is false. They are fundamentally the same: they each use discrete symbols (letters) to represent basic sounds (as opposed to the syllabaries that came before, which represented whole consonants instead). The only difference is that an abjad (mostly) lacks vowels. But the addition of vowels (done by the Greeks) didn't change the actual system of writing, which they had adopted from the Phoenicians. Instead, they just added more of the *same kinds of symbols* but which now represented *more sounds* (vowels). So, given that they used the same manner of symbolizing used by the Phoenician alphabet (and the Proto-Sinaitic script that it originated from), the Greek alphabet cannot be said to be the first alphabet; it can only be said to be the first *vowel-containing* alphabet. Not a minor point!
Replying here so that I don't spam LV's notifications:
I quote Rogers' definition of alphabet verbatim in the article: “a type of writing system in which each symbol typically corresponds to… a consonant or vowel in the language.” (the ... replaces the word "a segment (consonant or vowel)") (p289)
So alphabet is being used as a technical term here, mutually exclusive with abjad. I understand that you don't agree with that definition, but it's not wrong in and of itself. I did not draw the inference that an alphabet is "fundamentally different" from an abjad, because, of course, they are not *fundamentally* different. But they are different in an interesting way, hence the distinction Rogers makes, which I follow in the article.
I understand your point, but I would disagree that his definition isn't incorrect. I'll start by responding to the following statement you make--
"I did not draw the inference that an alphabet is "fundamentally different" from an abjad, because, of course, they are not *fundamentally* different. But they are different in an interesting way, hence the distinction Rogers makes, which I follow in the article."
The issue I have is that Roger's classification of abjad (which follows Peter T. Daniels' controversial one) in contradistinction with an alphabet suggests that they're *different enough* to be of different classes. But is this really the case? I would argue no, and so do, by the way, many linguists. And the reason for that *both* use the same kind of phonetic representation, despite the difference they contain (having vs. not having vowels). In other words, they are the *same kind of writing system* in terms of their representation; and the addition of vowels doesn't change that. Now, contrast this with syllabaries vs. alphabets: these in fact use different kinds of phonetic representation, because syllabaries generally use whole syllables as their basic unit. This makes the syllabary a different system of writing from the alphabet; they don't represent *in the same way*. Hence, the separation of categories here is justified. On the other hand, "abjads" and alphabets do use the exact same manner of symbolizing--letters are used to indicate basic sounds. Therefore, they are the same kind of system and it cannot logically be said that a so-called abjad is "not technically an alphabet." No, technically it *is* one. I understand you're following Roger's definition, but if you think that they're different kinds of writing systems (as implied by your statement that abjads are "not actually alphabets at all"), I would argue that you'd be wrong about that. And this is obvious the moment you think about it: if vowels are essential to an alphabetical system, then are alphabets with more vowels more alphabetical, and ones with less vowels, less alphabetical? Are vowels that aren't pronounced in certain words non-alphabetical letters in those cases (e.g. the "e" in "stole")? What about the fact that the aleph of the Phoenician alphabet ("abjad") sometimes had an "a" sound--does this make it a "sometimes-alphabet-sometimes not?"
The existence or lack thereof of vowels doesn't at all affect the *type of representation* of the writing system itself: the vowels of an alphabet represent phonetic sounds in the same exact way as the consonantal letters in an abjad. Vowels are therefore not an essential but an additional aspect of the letter-to-sound writing system (alphabet). This makes it clear to me that the Roger-Daniels definition of abjads as being mutually exclusive with alphabets is flawed, unjustified and misleading. The difference between the two are not categorical, they're quantitative.
I want to add that I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this here. This gives people the chance to really think about the fundamental nature of an alphabetical system (and the other writing systems that preceded it), developed and passed down to us by our forebears. Thanks for writing about the history of the alphabet here, and doing so in an attention-grabbing, well-written manner. If there's any further disagreement you want to express, I invite you to do so. I have enjoyed the exchange so far.
To me the difference between an abjad and an alphabet is quite clear. As you say, the difference is quantitative, which is what I understood from Colin's post. Both are strings of letters representing single sounds. I had not come across the word "abjad" before, though I knew that some languages did not write vowels (e.g "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" represent the same word), but I would dispute that Colin's explanation is misleading. An abjad is just an alphabet with no, or fewer (not LESS) vowels.
Don't be pedantic with your "correction" of "fewer." It's irrelevant and misapplied, as this isn't an essay for university...Colin stated that an abjad is "not an alphabet at all," which is different from what you've stated here, and it's the principal point of disagreement, for the reasons already mentioned. The issue isn't that he said there's a difference between them. It's that he adopts the viewpoint (which was originally thought up by a linguist called Peter T. Daniels) that they are categorically different, to the point that they're mutually exclusive. This is simply incorrect.
The idea that modern writing scripts trace to either Egypt or China stopped me in my tracks, but a quick tour through Wikipedia tells me it’s basically true!
However, based on my memory, I can count one exception. The Cherokee syllabary was invented by a single illiterate individual in the 19th Century.
Right! Cherokee is a glorious exception!
He got the idea from the Latin alphabet.
There's also Korean writing, which legendarily was invented by a Korean king to give them what China had. Which, as the case of Sequoyah proves, is possible.
Well it's mostly, but not entirely, correct. An ABJAD is in fact an ALPHABET. A consonantal alphabet. He failed to mention this (maybe he didn't know it). And it was invented by the Canaanites (developed extensively from the hieroglyphics). Our alphabets therefore trace back to Canaan, and more particularly to modern-day Lebanon where the Phoenicians spread their version of the alphabet from.
Hi Jack, You seem to be using a different definition of abjad vs alphabet than Rogers does in his book, and therefore the one I'm using in the article. That's fair enough, but it doesn't make Rogers' definition incorrect given the terms that he is using.
Hi Colin, thanks for the response. As far as I know, Rogers basically defines it as a script that writes mostly consonants, but not vowels. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. An abjad does not use vowels, but this doesn't make it a non-alphabet. While I take Roger's definition (following Daniel) to be flawed, it is really the inference you drew from it (which many others also have) that I take some issue with. And that is that an abjad is non-alphabetical in its symbology/ that it uses a different kind of representation than "true alphabets." This just isn't true. From my other comment further down below--
"The distinction between alphabet and abjad is controversial because it often leads to the misapprehension that an abjad is a fundamentally different writing system. This is false. They are fundamentally the same: they each use discrete symbols (letters) to represent basic sounds (as opposed to the syllabaries that came before, which represented whole consonants instead). The only difference is that an abjad (mostly) lacks vowels. But the addition of vowels (done by the Greeks) didn't change the actual system of writing, which they had adopted from the Phoenicians. Instead, they just added more of the *same kinds of symbols* but which now represented *more sounds* (vowels). So, given that they used the same manner of symbolizing used by the Phoenician alphabet (and the Proto-Sinaitic script that it originated from), the Greek alphabet cannot be said to be the first alphabet; it can only be said to be the first *vowel-containing* alphabet."
I remember learning the origins of the letter A as a child too and being thoroughly fascinated by it as well! And I've learned languages where I can too - French, German, Latin, Spanish, Japanese, a bit of Welsh, random bits of Romanian... I loved learning the writing system in Japanese too, which is partly what interested me, and the chance to learn a non-European language.
I've gone deaf, annoyingly, so I've been learning British Sign Language and it's fascinating - in some ways, it draws on symbols like Chinese, in that you sort of show/mime the "thing". Others involve a bit of finger-spelling (but you could never finger-spell a whole language - it'd take forever).
A really interesting example are the signs for silver and gold. They begin with either a finger-spelled g or s, then both are followed by a sign which involves sort of waggling your fingers to signify something sparkly. Isn't that ingenious? And all invented by Deaf people!
Sign languages have their own grammars, so BSL puts the question word at the end of the sentence - just like I was used to doing in Japanese. But there's even more to sign than that because if you ask a question, you lean forwards and raise your eyebrows to signify it's a question! It's so fascinating to learn, but also bloody useful when I'm struggling to follow what someone's saying. In fact, my youngest brother is selective mute and although he won't verbalise, he's being taught sign so for the first time in years we can talk to each other! Pinker's theory of "the language instinct" is potent.
Thank you for sharing that, Helen! The structure of signed languages is extremely interesting, and hasn't had nearly enough attention from linguists over the years.
Very true. I think it's probably because Deaf communities can be quite closed and don't want to be under the microscope. But it's interesting - I was watching something not-British on telly recently where someone signed and I recognised some of it. It's interesting because the “mime” aspect of some signs will work between some cultures.
I suppose it's a bit like recognising the Chinese character for “tea” - as soon as you realise it's a little teahouse, you can't unsee it, even if you're not Chinese!
I went to college with a guy who'd learned Irish Sign Language and a bit of BSL. He said learning American Sign Language was much easier because ISL and ASL are both originally based on French Sign Language. He could talk to LSF users even though he knew no French!
How extraordinary!
I think BSL and Canadian Sign Language as I signed "where's my shopping?" During a meeting as an example of sign, and there was Canada's woman there who is a sign interpreter and she knew exactly what I meant!
Interestingly, there's regional variation in sign, so if you watch videos from the Exeter school, some signs are different from other schools. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised it has those localisms because language does, but also, you have Deaf children in school talking to each other and local signs evolve.
Another great article. Memories of stretching out on the floor while everyone listened to radio dramas while I read the 1940s Britannica are priceless.
Thanks, John! They may have been pricey but I think we got our money's worth in the end!
Fascinating story indeed. And it easy to understand how and why the Roman alphabet adopted from the Greek was later adopted by Anglo-Saxons people converted to Christianism.
But what about the old English runic alphabet ? How and from who did the German tribes get it ?
The origin of the runic alphabets is a very interesting question, and one which is still being debated by scholars. They seem to have come from some Greek-derived alphabet, but which one (and under what circumstances) is still a mystery!
Your story is wonderful. Mine is similar.
When I was seven years old, I was interested in dinosaurs. And then volcanoes. In the back of the volcano book was a page on geothermal energy: generating electricity from the heat of the earth (often close to volcanoes). Wow! What a cool concept. And then, the first oil crisis hit. People waited in line for hours to get gas. Adults were all worked up about it. I knew then that energy would be a big deal for my adult life, and that we needed to find sustainable ways to harvest it (like geothermal energy). Here I am, 50 years later, still working in that field of sustainable energy.
Wonderful! It just goes to show you: sometimes the kids know very early exactly what they want to do... and parents should thank their lucky stars every kid doesn't fixate on astronaut for too long.
Great 👍🏻 stuff- 🥰 love it 😊
Thank you!
I just found out about your newsletter. I originally discovered you from your conlanging series. I will be reading this often!
Thank you and biirai!
The history of linguistics has always fascinated me. Thanks for sharing this.
Thank you for reading!
What abt Basque, a language evolved in isolation, I believe? Did it develop an alphabet?
Basque (Euskara) didn't evolve in isolation, but all of its relatives died off. I believe it became a written language when the Basque region became part of the Roman Empire, and this is first writing system was the Latin alphabet.
One interesting fact about Basque is that it doesn't really have an 'f' sound; as a result many Spanish words have an 'h' where the Latin root had an 'f'. For example: ferrum -> hierro..
Anthony is right! I'll just add that the f => h change from Latin to Spanish may not be due to Basque influence, but could also have been driven by influence of other, Indo-European languages, or due to tendencies and variation internal to Latin.
Colin, I am enjoying your discussions immensely. Thanks for doing this! (English Lang & Lit, U of T)
Thank you very much, Anne!
And now we see teenagers in their own way coming full circle communication in text speak (lol, rofl, imho etc) and emojis. 🧐
In your studies, have you learned any of the languages that were written with cuneiform? I'm wondering about the various symbols they used. In the Romance/Germanic languages, the Latin alphbet is used for all of them, and a given letter used for pretty much the same sound in all the languages. So for example, the letter T is pronounced the same in English, Latin, French, and Norwegian (yes, I know there are exceptions, but the basic idea is true.) Now, what I understand about cuneiform is that the various signs stood for syllables -- ba, da, ta, ma etc. Were the same signs used for the same sounds in Akkadian as in Sumerian? I can't quite see the various peoples re-assigning new sounds to old signs, but folks have done stranger things. (I believe some Latin letters in Irish Gaelic have been re-assigned that way.)
I've not studied any of the languages written with a cuneiform script but, from what I've read, the situation is extremely complicated there: there are multiple cuneiform writing systems, with different structures, used to write languages from entirely different families.
Thanks for sharing this, it's very interesting!
Another great article.
But if you think you need all 26 letters, you might read Georges Perec "A void" or "la Disparition" in the original French. An entire book, both in the original and in the translation, without the letter e.
That description of Egyptian hieroglyphs reminds me somewhat of Chinese characters, with characters read both for meaning and sound, and homophones and near-homophones distinguished in writing by radicals (e.g. 風 feng 'wind', 瘋 feng 'mad', 楓 feng 'maple'). And another parallel is that Chinese characters too were simplified into pure phonemes when the Japanese got hold of them (although, as I'm sure you know, they also kept the originals). It would seem that those who invent writing independently prefer logographic scripts, and the desire of foreign borrowers not to have to reinvent from scratch is what leads to syllabaries, abjads and alphabets.
I don't know what happened to my original comment, so I'll just retype the gist of it here. While your write-up is mostly accurate, and highly informative, it does contain a grave error as well: contrary to what you stated, an ABJAD is in fact an ALPHABET. A consonantal alphabet. You failed to mention this (perhaps you didn't know it). The distinction between alphabet and abjad is controversial because it often leads to the misapprehension that an abjad is a fundamentally different writing system. This is false. They are fundamentally the same: they each use discrete symbols (letters) to represent basic sounds (as opposed to the syllabaries that came before, which represented whole consonants instead). The only difference is that an abjad (mostly) lacks vowels. But the addition of vowels (done by the Greeks) didn't change the actual system of writing, which they had adopted from the Phoenicians. Instead, they just added more of the *same kinds of symbols* but which now represented *more sounds* (vowels). So, given that they used the same manner of symbolizing used by the Phoenician alphabet (and the Proto-Sinaitic script that it originated from), the Greek alphabet cannot be said to be the first alphabet; it can only be said to be the first *vowel-containing* alphabet. Not a minor point!
Replying here so that I don't spam LV's notifications:
I quote Rogers' definition of alphabet verbatim in the article: “a type of writing system in which each symbol typically corresponds to… a consonant or vowel in the language.” (the ... replaces the word "a segment (consonant or vowel)") (p289)
So alphabet is being used as a technical term here, mutually exclusive with abjad. I understand that you don't agree with that definition, but it's not wrong in and of itself. I did not draw the inference that an alphabet is "fundamentally different" from an abjad, because, of course, they are not *fundamentally* different. But they are different in an interesting way, hence the distinction Rogers makes, which I follow in the article.
I understand your point, but I would disagree that his definition isn't incorrect. I'll start by responding to the following statement you make--
"I did not draw the inference that an alphabet is "fundamentally different" from an abjad, because, of course, they are not *fundamentally* different. But they are different in an interesting way, hence the distinction Rogers makes, which I follow in the article."
The issue I have is that Roger's classification of abjad (which follows Peter T. Daniels' controversial one) in contradistinction with an alphabet suggests that they're *different enough* to be of different classes. But is this really the case? I would argue no, and so do, by the way, many linguists. And the reason for that *both* use the same kind of phonetic representation, despite the difference they contain (having vs. not having vowels). In other words, they are the *same kind of writing system* in terms of their representation; and the addition of vowels doesn't change that. Now, contrast this with syllabaries vs. alphabets: these in fact use different kinds of phonetic representation, because syllabaries generally use whole syllables as their basic unit. This makes the syllabary a different system of writing from the alphabet; they don't represent *in the same way*. Hence, the separation of categories here is justified. On the other hand, "abjads" and alphabets do use the exact same manner of symbolizing--letters are used to indicate basic sounds. Therefore, they are the same kind of system and it cannot logically be said that a so-called abjad is "not technically an alphabet." No, technically it *is* one. I understand you're following Roger's definition, but if you think that they're different kinds of writing systems (as implied by your statement that abjads are "not actually alphabets at all"), I would argue that you'd be wrong about that. And this is obvious the moment you think about it: if vowels are essential to an alphabetical system, then are alphabets with more vowels more alphabetical, and ones with less vowels, less alphabetical? Are vowels that aren't pronounced in certain words non-alphabetical letters in those cases (e.g. the "e" in "stole")? What about the fact that the aleph of the Phoenician alphabet ("abjad") sometimes had an "a" sound--does this make it a "sometimes-alphabet-sometimes not?"
The existence or lack thereof of vowels doesn't at all affect the *type of representation* of the writing system itself: the vowels of an alphabet represent phonetic sounds in the same exact way as the consonantal letters in an abjad. Vowels are therefore not an essential but an additional aspect of the letter-to-sound writing system (alphabet). This makes it clear to me that the Roger-Daniels definition of abjads as being mutually exclusive with alphabets is flawed, unjustified and misleading. The difference between the two are not categorical, they're quantitative.
I want to add that I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this here. This gives people the chance to really think about the fundamental nature of an alphabetical system (and the other writing systems that preceded it), developed and passed down to us by our forebears. Thanks for writing about the history of the alphabet here, and doing so in an attention-grabbing, well-written manner. If there's any further disagreement you want to express, I invite you to do so. I have enjoyed the exchange so far.
To me the difference between an abjad and an alphabet is quite clear. As you say, the difference is quantitative, which is what I understood from Colin's post. Both are strings of letters representing single sounds. I had not come across the word "abjad" before, though I knew that some languages did not write vowels (e.g "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" represent the same word), but I would dispute that Colin's explanation is misleading. An abjad is just an alphabet with no, or fewer (not LESS) vowels.
Don't be pedantic with your "correction" of "fewer." It's irrelevant and misapplied, as this isn't an essay for university...Colin stated that an abjad is "not an alphabet at all," which is different from what you've stated here, and it's the principal point of disagreement, for the reasons already mentioned. The issue isn't that he said there's a difference between them. It's that he adopts the viewpoint (which was originally thought up by a linguist called Peter T. Daniels) that they are categorically different, to the point that they're mutually exclusive. This is simply incorrect.