Talk:Abjad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the "Writing systems" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project’s quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project’s importance scale. |
...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)
An abjad is a type of writing system where there is one symbol per character (as in an alphabet).
This incorporates a distinction between a symbol and a character that is completely lost on me. When is a symbol not a character? When is a character not a symbol? If such things as vowel points in Semitic writing systems are symbols but not characters, which I guess is what the sentence means, it would seem to me that this definition would exclude, say, the Aramaic alphabet, while later in the article it seems to be at least implicitly included. --Calieber 15:47, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
See also Bahá'í, where abjad is a numerological system.
Abjad is not actually mentioned on the Bahá'í page. --Mr2001 13:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that it something specific to Bahá'í, it seems to be numerological system based on the arabic letters. From german Wikipedia [1]:
- ابجد – abdschad: 1–2–3–4
- هوز – hawwaz: 5–6–7
- حطى – hutti: 8–9–10
- كلمن – kalaman: 20–30–40–50
- سعفص – sa'fas: 60–70–80–90
- قرشت – qaraschat: 100–200–300–400
- ثخذ – thachidh: 500–600–700
- ضظغ – dazagh: 800–900–1000
Somebody in the know should correct this, I'm not sure enough to do it myself.
Pjacobi 14:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Strange link
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.
Pjacobi 09:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Re: strange link
On Abjad (external link)
Dear Pjacobi:
it is an introduction on how the history of abjad develops, the article tracks the Arabic / Farsi lineage of Abjad (as there are many forms of Abjad) and it discusses how Arabic Abjad is devided into 9 powers (how zero is used as place holder) instead of Kaballah which gains power from 10. the tool of analysis is 'numogram' which is another kabbalistic / Abjad form of Tree of Life except as numogram is constituted by syzygies (twin numbers) whose sum must be equal to 9 (the 9 is the ABJAD power) instead of 10 (see for example: [2]). other topics of discissions in that article about Abjad is [1] why Arabic Abjad is an exception and takes its power from 9 and letter ghain or its last letter is equal to 1000 (what does 1000 mean in the occult and mathematical numerology of Arabic Abjad?) [2] connection of numerology and especially Abjad with Philosophy of Deleuze and Gauttari's numeracy or numbering numbers [3] in the wake of numerous occult and numerology stuff on War on Terror on the net, the article depicts why Kaballah and Abjad are used frequently. [4] interesting properties of Abjad when it is applied (i.e. installed) to the Numogram (aka Decimal Labyrinth) and Tree of Life. The article is not mine but i thought it is a good text to show how Abjad has developed systematically and enters to occult and philosophy.
pv000
- I still find the link confusing, taking for instance a snippet like this:
This is why ABJADs are perfectly applicable to ultra-complex dynamic platforms (such as warmachines and their plane of tacticity), digraming a numeracy “immanenet to thier assemblges” and soft grids of movement (read Nick’s post). However, there is one problem, that certain warmachines cannot be diagramed exclusively by strictly semitic-based, vowelless-oriented systems of numeracy as in the case of techno-capitalist Warmachines running on WoTerror. Here Arabic Abjad is the best numbering platform (let aside the polarity of Farsi / Arabic cultures in WoTerror) as it has characters for some vowels as well; creatively letting some problematic but also fundamentally crucial numbering entities and functions enter in.
- The ancestry tree of writing systems is nice, but I think a similiar one is already included in one of the other writing system articles, I'm too stupid to fint it right now. If not it needs being drawed and included.
- The link would make more sense, if the numerology behind this would have an overview treatmeant in the Wikipedia, either here, or in Numerology or in a separate article Abjad numerology.
- pv000, if you are interested in this, but not confident enought to start a new article right now, I suggest writing a draft in your user space, e.g. User:pv000/Abjad numerology (draft).
- Pjacobi 18:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right; it seems the article has some references to other discussions. The subject of 'the warmachine and numerology' refers to the discussion of warmachines and smoothspace in A Thousand Plateaus (Deleuze and Guattari) and also this article on why numerologic systems (Abjads) do not use fuzzy numbers. [3]
qoute from that article: "To be crude, there is a 3rd Army, not a 3.14th Army or a Pi Army etc. - a fact holding for every compositional level of the war machine in question. Making culture operate as a war machine requires the disintegration of all semiotics into numbers and a complementary numerical simplification. (Both aspects essential to 'numerization'). The currencies - or concrete semiotics - of commercial war machines, share these characteristics of digital 'granularity' and pre-eminence of modularity (typically on a decimal base) or the compositional aspect of number."
thanks, i will start to write a draft, i'll see if the writers of Hyperstition who are experts (former professors or philosophers) can join us in building up wikipedia or helping me to write this article.
pv000
[edit] Baha'e religion and Abjad
Dear Pjacobi,
Yes although Abjad is not peculiar to Baha'ie but only two sects (both considered as renegades by Sunnies and Shias) are adept in using Abjad (i.e. Arabic / Farsi Abjad); first 'Horoofi' (letters) sect founded by Mirza Fazlollah-e Astar'abadi and then Bahai'e. They are both regarded as two religions or sects which have developed Abjad not as a simple numerological system but a religion of numbers or what Deleuze and Gauttari suggest as "numbering numbers" which are entities (entity as event) rather than mere representations.
pv000
[edit] Link suggestions
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 {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abjad}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Abjad (linguistics) vs. Abjad order
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)
- 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)
[edit] Hebrew abjad?
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)
The text was:
The actual Hebrew sequence, as may be pronounced as a single word due to the unnecessity of vowels in the Hebrew language, is as follows:
- abgada[h]v[w]azhatik[kh]alamansapatzqareshet
I've removed this because as it stood, it had no apparent relation to the surrounding text, or indeed to the article, since the material on abjadi order was moved elsewhere; this was apparently overlooked at the time. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Abjad Definition from Daniels and Bright
The World's Writing Systems", Peter T. Daniels & William Bright, general editors, OUP, 1996. Section 1, "The Study of Writing Systems", written by Peter T. Daniels.
- In a consonantary, here called an abjad as a parallel to "alphabet" (the word is formed from the first letters of the most widespread example, the Arabic script, in their historic order . . . ), the characters denote consonants (only).
An abugida is a full syllabary. --FourthAve 20:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Primary meaning
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)
- 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)
[edit] Pronunciation
Given that it's a neologism, could the pronunciation be included. Is it /ˈæbdʒæd/? Gailtb 04:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
My IPA isn't the best but it should be more along the lines of /ˈabdʒad/. --LakeHMM 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tet and theta
Hebrew tet is homologous to greek theta. It wasn't removed or turned into a vowel. Zargulon 21:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] request for clarification of lead sentence in section "Impure Abjads"
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)
[edit] Connections to numbers
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)
[edit] "As with all syllabaries"?
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)
- Since nobody voiced a differing opinion, I will correct the lead regarding syllabaries. -- mglg(talk) 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 7-8-6
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)
