This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Although typologically intermediate between a pure alphabet and a semi-syllbary, I believe that Tartessian remains technically an alphabet, since it indicates each vowel distinctly. Perhaps a redundant alphabet; I wouldn't call it inefficient, because redundancy can be quite efficient: With consonant and vowel letters reinforcing each other, it in effect contained an error correction mechanism. kwami (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Reworded to avoid the issue. There isn't much point in classifying intermediate scripts like this. kwami (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
As a 'layman' in this respect, I think some comparison with the script system of Karthago as well as Nordic runic script could be interesting (if somebody know about if or has valid references). To me the resemblance with runic script is obvious here. I have also read somewhere that runic may be derived from Karthagian script. But maybe rather it could orgine from the Biscay/currrent Basque/Asturian etc. areas of Northern Spain. There were trade routes from this area to Scandinavia during the late Stone and Bronze Ages I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)