Talk:Aramaic alphabet

Brahmi script is older than Aramaic

Someone wrote this, "Aramaic is also considered to be the most likely source of the Brahmi script, ancestor of the Brahmi family of scripts, which includes Devanagari". But how can it be true? Brahmi script is found in Indus valley. Fully mature Indus valley civilization (Harappa, Mohenjo daro) is 3500 BC old . Aramaic script is only 800 BC old. So definitely Brahmi script is older than Aramaic and probably source of Aramaic script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.248.152.55 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That a script is found in a region where an ancient civilization happens to have existed does not automatically mean it originates from that civilization. For comparison: the fact that the Arabic script is used in Egypt doesn't mean that it goes back the ancient Pharaos. As for the Brahmi script, the minority hypothesis of a connection to the Indus script faces many challenges: see Brahmi_script#Indigenous_origin_hypothesis. Drabkikker (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, there are no accepted archaeological reports of Brahmi script in IVC contexts (don't confuse "Indus valley" with "Indus Valley Civilization contexts"). The earliest dateable examples of Brahmi are 4th or 5th century BCE and they were nowhere near the Indus valley. Tarchon (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Syriac scripts?

Why is there more Syriac script than Aramaic script in this article? Syriac script is based on Aramaic script BUT this article is about the Aramaic script. Why is the first picture of this article a picture of the Syriac alphabet? Shouldn't the first picture be a picture of one of the first forms of the Aramaic alphabet? Maybe, for example, Imperial Aramaic? ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 19:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Letters

Where happened with all the letter images?

User:Vassili_Nikolaev 03-nov-2003

Sorry, it's my IE5.5 somehow does not show png pictures anymore. It works fine in Netscape.

User:Vassili_Nikolaev 03-nov-2003

You knowledgable folks may want to vet changes made by User 134.76.165.76 Wetman 16:45, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How do you write...?

Hy. My name is Andrei and I would, please, like to know how do you write my name in aramaic.Thank you.

I would guess Aleph(?)-Nun-Daleth-Rsh-Yodh, but I am no expert on semitic languages, it seems probable it would be written the same (with the equivalent letters/sounds) in Hebrew or Arabic, so you might be better off, asking at that talk page, and then using the Aramaic alphabet instead. Please note that Semitic languages generally don't really use real vowels.

spelling

I was wondering if anyone could tell me how to spell my daughters name in aramaic. Her name is ZOE.

Blue Skies Frank

Hmmm, Zayin-Waw-Yodh, maybe? =S Also, check out Hebrew language and Arabic language.

To start with, the name is Greek: Ζωη, life. In transliteration, it could be זו(א)י (zô'ê). In Aramaic, most names are in the emphatic state, so it would translate as חיתא (ħayθâ), or in Syriac ܚܝܬܐ. However, the obvious choice would be the biblical חוה (ħawwâ, or Eve. Gareth Hughes 16:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unicode

Aramaic alphabet isn't part of Unicode??

It split into several forms, including Hebrew, Syriac, and Mandaic. No one seems to have wanted to encode the original, since it can be treated as a font variation of one of the descendants. - Mustafaa 12:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is an old (1999) draft for separately encoding Aramaic and there is still a block reserved in the roadmap to the SMP [1] but AFAIK no one is pushing this in the moment. --Pjacobi 13:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aramaic_alphabet 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/Aramaic_alphabet}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Era and consistency

For consistency with Aramaic language this article uses BCE era convention instead of BC in two places. This article is wholly consistent in itself in this usage, but it is not consistent with Template:Alphabets (see my remark here). As that template is being reviewed at the moment, it seems inappropriate to make the article consistent with it. The article in BCE is consistent with Manual of Style and is appropriate to the content. I do not feel that there is sufficient merit to change it. --Gareth Hughes 20:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Letter names

What is the source for the letter-names we use here? -- Evertype·✆ 12:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, they aren't sourced. I know that both Gareth and I can simply rattle them off from memory (much like someone would do their ABC's, and how do you source that? :-) ), but it would be a good idea to get a source to back them with. Let me fiddle with things. אמר Steve Caruso 15:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They are a sample of Imperial Aramaic names, some of which, unfortunately, are reconstructed. I shall try to recover the source that they can be referenced correctly. I think the names have been changed a little over time by editors, usually to adapt them to Classical/Modern Hebrew spelling. It looks like these have been mostly reverted. Rosenthal, the source of the letter shapes, uses the Masoretic spelling of the letter names; this is not surprising as he is dealing with Masoretic texts. I think the information given in the article is rather slim, so the best answer may be to expand on the history of Aramaic script to demonstrate the diversity of language. — Gareth Hughes 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am working on encoding Imperial Aramaic in the UCS and I guess I will have to follow Rosenthal and Driver, who agree at least. -- Evertype·✆ 08:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Phoenician source

If the "Aramaic alphabet ... developed out of the Phoenician alphabet", any later alphabet that can be traced back to the Aramaic one, can be traced further back to the Phoenician. It is therefore not "the Aramaic alphabet [that] is historically significant since virtually all modern Indian and Middle Eastern writing systems use a script that can be traced back to it", it is the Phoenician. -- Futhark|Talk 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, simply replacing 'Aramaic' with 'Phoenician' at the beginning of the second paragraph does not make any sense. Either we have to preface it with the information linking the two scripts, or move the entire paragraph to a point after Phoenician is mentioned. — Gareth Hughes 17:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was being as minimally editorially invasive as I could manage, not knowing if there was anyone who had a strong sense of overriding responsibility for the article. I felt that increasing the historiographic precision on that one point made enough sense to be worth the effort without redisposing the article, and look forward to seeing where it will be taken. -- Futhark|Talk 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have wanted to rewrite this article for a long time, but it's a difficult task. The main problem is that there isn't really any one Aramaic alphabet, but many related forms: this article tends to concentrate on Imperial Aramaic script. Phoenician is clearly the source of Aramaic script, which, in turn, is the source of Hebrew square script. However, the amount of borrowing from South Arabian scripts for Arabic is unclear, and Aramaic's influence of the Brahmi family of scripts is tough. Syriac, Mandaean, Pahlavi, Uyghur and Mongolian, though, are clearly derived from Aramaic scripts. — Gareth Hughes 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless evidence is provided to show the Brahmi Script originating from the Aramaic Script, i am removing the line from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.206.125 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

..

how can i write my name.."giorgos" (ie in english language meaning george) in aramaic ?

Hieroglyph ancestry

I noted that Gareth Hughes 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC) had removed all links in the Infobox WS that describe the Parent system all the way back to the Egyptian hieroglyphs, for the Arameic script and other scripts. I don't understand the reason for that. It surely cannot be controversial that the Aramaic, Phoenician, Greek, and Proto-Canaanite (and others) scripts all emanate from the Egyptian hieroglyphs. It would be interesting to see the argument, as those relations between scripts are manifested throughout Wikipedia as well as elsewhere, since years.

It really has nothing to do with arguing that those systems aren't derivative of Egyptian hieroglyphs, rather, it is more useful in an encyclopedia to have the top parent in the infobox be a parent language that still shares some similarities to the script being discussed in the article. In this case, by clicking Proto-Canaanite, they are immediately taken to a page on that script, which has its own infobox, with its own parent systems, including Egyptian hieroglyphs as the ultimate source. Brando130 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please talk about major changes first. Please provide supporting evidence. Please don't respond by putting your edits back in. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Selecting a "top parent in the infobox be a parent language that still shares some similarities to the script being discussed" is if anything arbitrary at its best; the Latin letters A and M still share more than "some similarities" with their precursors all the way back to the hieroglyphs. Going all the way to the, as far as I can tell, accepted root also is also a more consistent, encyclopedic approach. It does then also show the Wikipedia user to which script family or subfamily a particular script belongs, directly! Stopping at an arbitrarily chosen point like "Proto-Canaanite", in an overview like the Infobox, is a bad idea if the oldest known ancestor is a mere two steps away.

Since the oldest scripts probably are less than 10,000 years old and often lasted for a long time (let us say a thousand years on average) it would not be necessarily be burdensome to the layout either. Can we really expect more than ten hierarchal levels anywhere in this context? Probably not. The only dilemma I can think of are the weakly supported relations between scripts, and how to best indicate that. For some Brahmi scripts this has been noted with linked numbers, even if it should not be necessary here.

Please, differentiate between the script symbols per se and the language they represent. They don't necessarily go hand in hand even if, of course, intimately tied. Both phonetic and semantic shifts are common between and within in most European languages, despite that a[n intended] sound may be represented by one symbol or group of symbols. Even if the symbol M was pronounced differently by the early Egyptians it remains the same symbol. The Chinese script family accommodates dozens of extant languages, too, and like the hieroglyph derivatives also has one history tree with a branching pattern full of additions and deletions of its component symbols. The Basque language uses the Latin script apparently without consideration of its linguistic origin.

My point is that the script tree will differ from the language tree and trying to link them, in Wikipedia's layout, will do no good. Ideally, I think these infoboxes should have their script precursors indicated for all scripts in Wikipedia, as far as possible. Looking forward to hear you arguments. Cheers! - Throttleryn (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Since all of these languages and their alphabets have seperate articles, I don't necessarily see how language and script are being inappropriately tied in the article. Some of the confusion simply may be in how I phrased the sentence "top parent in the infobox be a parent language that still shares some similarities to the script being discussed" - and I should have stated that the top parent be a parent /script/ that still shares some similarities, a statement I disagree is 'arbitrary at best' - since these systems do have traceable derivatives, its not just you and I looking at the characters and saying "Oh that one looks more like Phoenician aleph than Greek alpha." Those similarities should also speak to the function of a script, the most important similarity being that the system is still primarily alphabetic. Thus once you go to the article that appears at the top of the infobox, the parent for alphabets, currently the Proto-Canaanite article, you can then further read on and find out all of the same information you are insisting on anyway, mainly that most scholars find alphabetic writing in Sinai/Canaan to be somehow connected to hieroglyphs. At any rate, if hieroglyphs do end up as the top parent of any one particular alphabet, they would logically need to be on top of just about every alphabet out there, a change that might not find consensus all around Wikipedia. Brando130 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The process going from a logographic system towards an essentially alphabetic system has been in leaps as well as gradual. But the acrophonic writing did not commence with the Proto-Canaanite as you imply by saying it was "primarily alphabetic". Unless I misunderstood it, that is how Champollion finally deciphered the hieroglyphs, by accepting that they were a mixture of logographic and acrophonic/phonetic alphabet symbols. The function you refer to may then be predated by more than fifteen centuries, by the Egyptian hieroglyphs.

However, it is time consuming to draw a little bird or a snake every time you wish to write a letter or a word! So, parallel to that process there was, in Egypt, already the orthographic simplification of the illustrative hieroglyphs - the easily writable hieratic. That is how the process has been in China, too, with the oldest scripts being readily interpretable as illustrations and later styled into their purely symbolic value. [There are strictly phonetic symbols in the Chinese script family too, but whether they are acrophonic I do not know; Japanese has several phonetic, others may have them too] The fact that the oldest Egyptian Hieratic scripts occurs at the same time as the more logographic hieroglyphs may be an artifact; they both are after all many thousands of years. The Demotic script is a few millennia younger but evidently quickly had a greater popularity among the people. I have not seen any actual reason for the switch from hieratic to demotic, even if I believe writing simplicity may have been a reason; in any case it probably was the poor mans hieratic that came to live its own life in the markets and elsewhere (quite likely the same may have been true for the Proto-Canaanite; but not Phoenician which had had the time to mature on the foundations of its direct precursor).

Yes, I do think the Egyptian hieroglyphs should be "on top of just about every alphabet out there", as long as it is the precursor to all other scripts in the group and there is an 'acceptable' degree of evidence for it. Why would anyone from Rabat, Reykjavik, Ulan Bator, or Yangon object to that? If it is the precursor to all other scripts in its group, so be it. - Throttleryn (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet

May I note that the Georgian alphabet is not an offspring of the Aramaic alphabet, but rather a free - although surely inspired - invention of its inventor, as is the case with the Armenian alphabet?

First table has something wrong

• Parent systems

Proto-Canaanite alphabet

→ Phoenician alphabet

→ {{{name}}}

{{{name}}} appears!

--Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Writing Systems importance reassessment

I believe that this script should be classified as "High" importance, rather than "Top". While it is an important middle-ground between Phoenecian and many modern scripts, I do not believe it is so central to an understanding of the subject of writing systems as a whole as Phonecian, Arabic, Greek, Brahmi, etc. Vanisaac (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Right-to-left?

I assume Aramaic was usually written right-to-left, like Phoenician and Hebrew? If so, this should be stated in the article. AxelBoldt (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Aramaic script

What happened to the "Aramaic script" column? It is now renamed to "Hebrew script". Now there are two different columns saying Hebrew. @Achayan: I am no expert but my guess is that this edit was a misstake? Not sure though, therefore I'm asking here first. Shmayo (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This script is called Aramaic even in the Hebrew alphabet article. Shmayo (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing fonts

hello, i am not able to display some of the characters on this page. you can see an example here : http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd496/frabjousday123/Untitled-1_3.jpg
this happens with both firefox and with chrome, so i don't think it is a browser issue. i have already checked the browser configuration and the possibility to download missing fonts automatically is enabled. does anyone have an idea how i can see these missing characters ? 76.168.103.217 (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The Imperial Aramaic and Phoenician text displays OK on my Windows 11 system using the Segoe UI History font (seguihis.ttf). That font comes with Windows 11 (and I've read Windows 10 but can't verify that). You might find seguihis.ttf elsewhere too if you search for it. I doubt Chrome can "automatically" download it. DRMcCreedy (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aramaic alphabet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511124600/http://judaea.chimehost.net/main/text.pdf to http://judaea.chimehost.net/main/text.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Aramaic writing system is not an alphabet right?

Isn't the name of the article incorrect? The Aramaic writing system is an abjad and not an alphabet, right? Fantumphool (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Source For Equivalent Letters In Brahmi

Where does your association between Brahmi and North Semitic scripts come from? Because in the Brahmi script article at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmi_script the Aramaic semkath is 𑀱, Sādhē is 𑀘 and Shin is 𑀰, citing Bühler 1898, p. 82-83 and Salomon 1998, p. 25 as source. Princ3jah (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Princ3jah (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Source for non-spirantisation of /p/ in letter names?

Why /alap/ and not /alaf/, when final /t/ and /d/ are 'th' and 'dh' in Dālath and Yodh? Andreas Schuele in "Introduction to Biblical Aramaic" (2012: 10) states that the spirantisation after vowels applied to all of begadkefat, just as in Masoretic Hebrew.--79.100.149.219 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed that, since I saw that this had been introduced by OR in 2014.--79.100.149.219 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Source for the letter names in general?

I see that the letter names given originally were basically the standard Masoretic Hebrew versions of the names, which are often used conventionally to refer to the genetically corresponding letters in abjads. The current forms appear to be the product of interplay between the modifications introduced by two users in 2006, here and here, and their edit summaries suggest that they didn't take the supposedly Aramaic forms of names from any source, but arrived at them through their own original research, whose accuracy I see no reason to be confident in. I think the names ought to be sourced properly or replaced with something sourced.--79.100.149.219 (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing fonts (Repeat)

Six years ago a User has posted this message:

hello, i am not able to display some of the characters on this page. you can see an example here : http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd496/frabjousday123/Untitled-1_3.jpg

this happens with both firefox and with chrome, so i don't think it is a browser issue. i have already checked the browser configuration and the possibility to download missing fonts automatically is enabled. does anyone have an idea how i can see these missing characters ?

Since then, seemingly nothing has happened. This issue remains unsolved. And my question is ‐ why?--2003:CF:3F07:9F7E:AC10:AE30:96C9:7999 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Aramaic script

Change title to Aramaic script it isnt an alphabet AleksiB 1945 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Aramaic alphabet → Aramaic script – Its an abjad not an alphabet. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• STRONGLY OPPOSE --"Abjad" in this meaning is a neologism which didn't exist until the 1990s. For centuries before that, and still often after that, people spoke of a "consonantal alphabet" if any greater precision was needed. If the titles of the "Arabic alphabet" and "Hebrew alphabet" articles don't change, then the title of this article should not change. There's some discussion of this issue at Talk:Arabic alphabet, where a move for that article was basically rejected (though not a formal proposal with template). AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2022
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME (see here[2][3]) and also per WP:CONSISTENCY. We have an in-house convention that uses "script" for basic writing systems as sign inventories with distinct letter shapes (independent of language), and "alphabet" for the application of such a script to individual languages (including slight variation by means of diacritics etc.). This is why we have "Latin script" vs. "German alphabet", Cyrillic script vs. Bulgarian language, Arabic script vs. Arabic alphabet and Bengali–Assamese script vs. Bengali alphabet. This hierarchical (and quite ideosyncratic) naming convention is of course still open for debate, and I can remember having seen people were banging heads over it somewhere (was it WT:LANGUAGES?).

In any case, this is different from the rationale of the OP which is based on the nature of the script type. The typological classification of the writing system (alphabet, abjad, abugida) is not really decisive here. –Austronesier (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see how Google word-counts can resolve anything, since "Aramaic alphabet" and "Aramaic script" could be often used with different meanings. And this article should keep its current name if similar articles also do (Phoenician alphabet, etc). AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

JSTOR, then:

• Aramaic script: 725 counts[4]
• Aramaic alphabet: 137 counts[5]

–Austronesier (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Austronesier -- You're basically missing my point. If the phrase "Aramaic alphabet" is often used with a different meaning than "Aramaic script", then mechanical search results by their nature simply won't be too useful here... AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I often make the same argument as you do in move discussions when I see (and not just assume) that the search results contain a significant amount of false positives. So I do see the point, but until now it's missing substance.

I have taken a look at a sample of those 850+ articles, and I can't see that authors refer to anything but the topic of this article: the Phoenician-derived writing system with letters of a distinct recognizable (or rather: classifiable) shape that primarily was used to write Aramaic, but also a few other ancient languages, whether it's called "script" or "alphabet" in the sources (some quotes for the latter: "The libraries at Susa, Persepolis, Ekbatana, and other provincial administrative centers contained documents in Aramaic as well as Old Persian written in the Aramaic alphabet", "the Brahmi script was derived for commercial use in the eighth century B.C. from an Aramaic alphabet", "Inscribed on both thighs, Greek on the left; Parthian on the right in a variation of the eastern Aramaic alphabet"). By our naming conventions, this is a script. –Austronesier (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support partially per Austronesier, but I do not like our "ideosyncratic naming convention". Srnec (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support? Abjads are alphabets, so I agree with AnonMoos that that's irrelevant. (Although we do use Daniels & Bright terminology for classification, we don't use it for article titles.) WP convention of the past decade or so has been to use 'script' for the writing system and 'alphabet' for the adaption of a script to a particular language. The JSTOR etc. numbers aren't particularly relevant, because the phrases mean different things in our convention. (We can of course change that convention, but that should be a centralized discussion, not something to decide here.) In cases where a script is used primarily for a single language, there isn't much to differentiate the two choices, but if this article is primarily about the script as it was used for Aramaic, then it belongs at 'Aramaic alphabet'. If it is about the script itself, rather than its use for any particular language, then it belongs at 'Aramaic script'. This article is kind of a muddle somewhere in between. The lead addresses the script as a whole, but the section "Languages using the alphabet [sic]" says very little about use of the Aramaic script for various languages; rather, it focuses on Aramaic-related languages using related scripts, which is somewhat off topic. The Imperial Aramaic script was used for a large number of languages, so this article could certainly be about the script as a whole, and probably it should be, but that aspect is currently underdeveloped. So the choice should ideally depend on what we want the article to be about. If there's only a single, unified article on any script, then it should normally be at 'script' and cover everything; 'X alphabet' could then be split off if that section becomes sufficiently well developed to stand on its own.

As for the comments on Arabic and Hebrew, we do have separate articles on Arabic script and Arabic alphabet, which follow our convention -- cf. Latin script and Latin alphabet. We don't have a similar distinction for Hebrew, even though there are Hebrew, Yiddish, Ladino etc. alphabets, all of which are Hebrew script. For consistency, 'Hebrew script' would be about the writing system as a whole, or as a unitary article, and 'Hebrew alphabet' would be about the script as it is used to write Hebrew. But our coverage of the different Hebrew (and also Greek) alphabets is mostly covered at other articles (e.g. follow Yiddish alphabet). Per WP:CONSISTENCY, both Hebrew and Greek should probably be at 'script', but since they're intermediate in content between script articles and alphabet articles, the difference isn't crucial. — kwami (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, abjad is only a modern linguistic classification term that refers to a special type of alphabets. Also oppose that "ideosyncratic naming convention", because trying to find a difference between Latin script and Latin alphabet is problematic as those articles have the same content. Serg!o (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No illustrative image

Can you add image to the top to show the script? 102.44.243.243 (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Boldly inaccurate similarity claim

"Among the descendant scripts in modern use, the Jewish Hebrew alphabet bears the closest relation to the Imperial Aramaic script of the 5th century BC, with an identical letter inventory and, for the most part, nearly identical letter shapes." This needs to be removed, but I didn't know how to reword the paragraph. Temerarius (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)