Talk:Abugida
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project’s quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project’s importance scale. |
Are the tengwar abugidas? -- Error
- They can be, depending on the mode. If you write vowels with dots, they're an abugida. If you write them with separate letters (e.g. mode of Beleriand), they're more alphabet-like (especially if you use separate characters for each vowel rather than a generic vowel character which bears marks). A bit like the difference between Hebrew and Yiddish: both use the same script, but Hebrew uses it as an abjad (if you ignore matres lectionis) while Yiddish uses it as an alphabet. -- pne 15:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abugida 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/Abugida}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] The usage of consonant characters without an inherent vowel in Brahmi scripts
As me and Gwalla have both reverted from our respective edits now, I thought it best to bring the matter do discussion.
In my opinion, the formulation that the vowelless characters are used in consonant clusters and syllable-finally is redundant and, more importanly, perhaps unclear to larger audience. I am not familiar with how South Asian scholars describe them, but in an encyclopedic article that isn't important. My point is that saying that they are used in consonant clusters and word-finally, it should be clear and unambiguous to most what is meant, and there is no need to resort to the notion of syllable, which has no clear and universally agreed status even among linguists.
Of course, I am open to correction and clarification of the opposing view, but until then, I hope that passage wouldn't be further edited. ---Oghmoir 11:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A consonant cluster is a group of adjacent consonants in the same syllable, like the /st/ in "start" or the /dz/ in "kids". A syllable-final consonant is like the /m/ in "hamburger". Linguists differentiate between them because some languages allow the latter but not the former. — Gwalla | Talk 01:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- In every discussion on phonology that I have encountered during my linguistics studies, consonant clusters have been defined as any kind of a group of adjacent consonants, regardless of syllable boundaries. For example, the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics defines consonant clusters as: "A sequence of consonants before, after, or between vowels. E.g. [str] is a medial consonant cluster in words like astray." Anyway, many linguists would say that the /s/ in "start" and /z/ in "kids" are syllables of their own, because they are higher on the sonority hierarchy, but many wouldn't. ---Oghmoir 09:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Abugida in Ge'ez
Does anyone know the Ge'ez characters for A-bu-gi-da? Thank you. --Immanuel Giel 14:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Syllabaries
The obvious contrast is with syllabaries, which have one distinct symbol per possible syllable, and the signs for each syllable have no systematic graphic similarity.
But Korean hangul is a syllabary, is it not? And the syllables for (say) ka, ki, ku, ke, ko are all similar. Rcaetano 18:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's an alphabet. --Immanuel Giel 28 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)
- Just that the individual letters are combined in squares, read as syllables.
[edit] Tamil script *not* a true abugida
Mainly because it *does* possess pure consonants, marked by a dot on top of the consonant. If there is no contention, I will remove it from the list of "true" abugidas. Kingsleyj 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is the case for most Indic and Ethiopic scripts. Tamil does not have letters for plain consonants; for that it needs a diacritic. That's a defining feature of abugidas. kwami 05:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the Ethiopian script doesn't have a letter for pure consonants anymore. Formerly, the first form was a pure consonant (when it was an abjad), but the sadis (sixth) form which can be used for consonants is technically "Cə" rather than an inherent consonant. It can be a consonant in some cases (usually word-final, except sometimes when connected in a phrase), but the basic letter form is for a vowel. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hebrew
Why classical hebrew is not a abugidas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.205.105.82 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wasn't classical Hebrew still an abjad? I thought that it was all consonants with perhaps diacritics to mark vowels (like Arabic), but not actual modification of the letter forms (or reorientation, etc.). Actually, I guess if the diacritics were necessary in all writing, then it would be an abugida, but since it's extraneous to the writing of Hebrew, then it wouldn't be an Abugida. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
