Typical and atypical alphabets
Beyond the definition given in the last post, most alphabets share a number of other properties. In my opinion, the following ones are particularly prominent:
- Graphemes are arranged in a single line in one direction
- Consonants and vowels are graphically equal
- Each phoneme corresponds to one grapheme
These properties do seem to be widely and strongly associated with alphabets in particular. For instance,
WWS has no qualms with calling Meroitic ‘essentially alphabetic’ , even though it’s quite straightforwardly an abugida — presumably because it satisfies both (1) and (2) above. Similarly,
Wikipedia calls 'Phags-pa an alphabet without qualification, despite its obviously abugidic nature. (And for that matter,
Pollard — which I’ll describe below — gets called an abugida even though it’s an alphabet! Specifically, an alphabet which violates both (2) and (1).)
On the other hand, there exist alphabets which do not satisfy all of these properties. Such alphabets differ interestingly from the norm, so it’s worth having a closer look at them.
(Given previous discussion, I should probably make myself completely clear at this point: I claim no particular psychological effects to points (1), (2) or (3). They’re interesting purely because they show the range of diversity which gets subsumed within the term ‘alphabet’.)
Let’s start with (1): the property of
linearity. When using an alphabet, this has an obvious functional motivation — after all, if you’re writing out every phoneme separately, it makes sense to write them out in order.
The most famous example of a nonlinear script is of course Hangeul, used for Korean. This is indisputably an alphabet, and a very good one at that: the correspondence between graphemes and phonemes is near-perfect. However, the letters (in Korean,
jamo) are not written out linearly, but collected into distinct
syllable blocks. For instance, the jamo ⟨ㅎㅏㄴ⟩, spelling out
han, are written in a single block as ⟨한⟩. In general, the first consonant (or ⟨ㅇ⟩ for a null onset) is placed at the top-left, followed by the vowel to the right and/or below. A final consonant goes at the bottom if present.
Hangeul’s nonlinearity is exacerbated by the fact that its writing direction has switched from top-to-bottom to left-to-right. (Thanks to Richard W for this observation!) Hangeul syllable blocks are essentially constructed vertically: a word such as ⟨국문⟩
gungmun would be completely linear if the syllables are written top-to-bottom, as was previously the case. Nonetheless, horizontally-formed syllables as in ⟨사라미⟩
sarami are also common, as are syllables with a mix of directions. Furthermore — excepting the work of typographers such as
Ahn Sang Soo — jamo are invariably stretched and squeezed to form square blocks, which further deemphasises any linearity which might be present.
Next, (2). This one also makes obvious sense in an alphabet: if all phonemes are regularly written as separate graphemes, there’s not much motivation to treat consonants and vowels differently within the script.
The most striking counterexample to this I know is Thaana, the writing system of the Dhivehi language (the Indo-Aryan language of the Maldives). In Thaana, only consonants are written as full letters. Meanwhile, vowels are written as diacritics on the previous consonant. Every consonant must have a diacritic: those which have no following vowel receive the
sukun diacritic, a small ring. Similarly, a vowel without a preceding consonant can take the
alifu ⟨އ⟩ as base. The alifu+sukun combination ⟨އް⟩ is used to mark gemination of the following consonant (and reportedly glottal stop as well, though I see no evidence of this).
The net impression of this writing system is a line of consonants with another line of vowels above (plus a few below). Using the UDHR as an example (source: Wikipedia):
ހުރިހާ އިންސާނުން ވެސް އުފަންވަނީ، ދަރަޖަ އާއި ޙައްޤު ތަކުގައި މިނިވަންކަމާއި ހަމަހަމަކަން ލިބިގެންވާ ބައެއްގެ ގޮތުގައެވެ.
- ހު
- hu
- ރި
- ri
- ހާ
- haː
- އި
- i
- ން
- n
- ސާ
- saː
- ނު
- nu
- ން
- n
- ވެ
- ve
- ސް
- s
- އު
- u
- ފަ
- fa
- ން
- n
- ވަ
- va
- ނީ،
- niː
- ދަ
- da
- ރަ
- ra
- ޖަ
- dʒa
- އާ
- aː
- އި
- i
- ޙަ
- ħa
- އް
- ː
- ޤު
- qu
- ތަ
- ta
- ކު
- ku
- ގަ
- ɡa
- އި
- i
- މި
- mi
- ނި
- ni
- ވަ
- va
- ން
- n
- ކަ
- ka
- މާ
- maː
- އި
- i
- ހަ
- ha
- މަ
- ma
- ހަ
- ha
- މަ
- ma
- ކަ
- ka
- ން
- n
- ލި
- li
- ބި
- bi
- ގެ
- ɡe
- ން
- n
- ވާ
- va
- ބަ
- ba
- އެ
- e
- އް
- ː
- ގެ
- ɡe
- ގޮ
- ɡo
- ތު
- tu
- ގަ
- ɡa
- އެ
- e
- ވެ.
- ve
Transcription: hurihā insānun ves ufanvanī, darajaʾāi ḥaqqu takugai minivankamāi hamahamakan libigenvā baʾegge gotugaʾeve.
(Incidentally, I can’t resist sharing
Viethaana, a thoroughly creative Thaana font which recasts it as Latin letters. I have no idea how this compares to the experience of actually reading Thaana, though. Probably poorly!)
Because its letters are not arranged linearly, Thaana violates property (1) in addition to (2). However, it is possible for a writing system to have (2) only: that is, it may treat consonants and vowels unequally, but still write them in a single line.
One near-example of such a script is the Pollard script, invented to write A-Hmao (a.k.a. ‘Large Flowery Miao’), a member of the Hmong–Mien family spoken in China. In Pollard, consonants are large and take up the full height of a line, whereas the syllable rime is written using clearly smaller graphemes (occasionally merged into a single letterform). Possibly uniquely amongst scripts, tone is represented by positioning these letters in different positions relative to the baseline. But most of the time the graphemes within a word remain almost linearly arranged — e.g. ⟨𖼊𖽺𖾐 𖼣𖽔 𖼊𖽱𖾐⟩. Alas, Pollard is not a perfect example: high tone is represented by writing the vowel above the consonant, as in ⟨𖼽𖽔𖾑⟩, and apparently in some usages there’s also a fifth tone written below the consonant.
Finally, there’s property (3): that each phoneme is written with one grapheme, i.e. that the script is
phonemic. This is the converse of the definition I gave for alphabets, namely that each grapheme transcribes one phoneme. I won’t go into much detail about violations of this property, for the simple reason that I’m writing in English — if you can read this post, I assume you’re already well-acquainted with how convoluted a non-phonemic alphabet can get! But I’ll probably write a bit about non-phonemic orthographies at some stage.