On 27/07/2011 20:59, Peter Cyrus wrote:
> The Shwa abjad gait IS cursive,

Of course, we don't disagree on that. But my point is that:
1. An abjad is not necessarily cursive. The Hebrew abjad is
not cursive (nor, of course, were the early Semitic abjads).
2. Alphabetic systems (almost) always have cursive variants.
3. By your own admission "the Shwa Abjad doesn't omit
vowels: the vowels must be written." If vowels _must_ be
written, then it ain't an abjad.

As far as I can see, the so-called "abjad gait" is
_misnamed_ - if you called it the "Schwa cursive gait", I'd
have no quarrel with it (except I would used 'mode' rather
than 'gait').

> and I hope it can be made
> calligraphic, by which I mean "resembling pretty
> handwriting".   Yes, I hope that all Shwa gaits will be
> beautiful

That's up to calligraphers   :)

> It is also an abjad gait in that the vowels are written
> separately from the skeleton of the consonants.  Arabic
> and Hebrew with vowels shown is still an abjad, right?

In Arabic and Hebrew vowel pointing is _optional_ and is not
normally done, except in sacred texts. That, of course, was
why vowel pointing was developed. The Masoretes wanted to
ensure the correct reading of the Torah; similarly the Koran
always has full vowel pointing to ensure correct recitation
of the text.

> Despite my protestations to the contrary on behalf of
> foreigners, I don't plan on having the Shwa Police
> descend on you if you omit the vowels in languages where
> they can be inferred.

{groan} I can do that with the Roman alphabet!

w-'l mlk b-mlkm w-skn b-snm w-tm' mḥnt' lj gbl w-jgl 'rn zn
tḥtsp htr mšpth thtpk ks'milkh w-nḥ tbrḥ' l gbl w-h' jmḥ

Wow! No Roman police descended on me!

I could, of course, write the above bit of Punic in 
_cursive_ Roman script - that wouldn't make it the "Roman 
abjad gait". It would merely make it a cursive Roman letter
transcription of a text written in an abjad.

But I fear we shan't agree. As I wrote before, I am in
agreement with Michael Everson's observations:

On 26/07/2011 17:55, Michael Everson wrote:
 >> - (Mr. Everson) the option of using different gaits may
 >> make it more familiar to people who aren't using an
 >> alphabet
 > Which means two things. One, that a given gait just makes
 > a pastiche of the script those people are already using
 > (so why should they wish to use something else), and two,
 > that it renders the script illegible to people except for
 > the gait they are used to.

Nothing so far has persuaded me otherwise.

Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.