[Projoy] Words? NO. [Rosie] Medical connection? NO.

[Rosie] Casting out devils? NO.

I suspect that I have put people on the wrong track, so if anyone would like a hint, let me know.

Far too early for a hint, yet.

[Darren] Ceremonial? NO.
[Irouléguy] From an Asian culture? NO.

[Rosie] Inscription? Sometimes, though not so often in the modern day.

[Darren] To do with death? NO.
[ImNotJohn] An obituary? NO.
[Rosie] An epitaph? NO.

[Quendalon] Rather than a hint - please can you do a summary. It may help us realign ourselves :-)

[Irouléguy] To do with war or the military? NO.
[Chalky] Skepticism? NO.

And now to summarize! I’ll also correct a couple of my own answers where I think I may have misread or misinterpreted your questions. So:

This abstract is a human construct. It was once specific to a particular culture, though not an Asian culture. It has to do with language, but it is not a particular form of words.

It is not an emotion, a philosophy, a type of comedy, an action, an epitaph or obituary, or Feng Shui.

It is not inherently connected to science, to swearing, to sex, to religion, to the worship of some unusual object or event, to medicine, to casting out devils, to death, to war or the military, or to skepticism.

Notably, the subject has experienced a shift in use over time. Originally, it had a connection with positive emotion, was often inscribed (in the sense of being etched into a solid surface), and was sometimes connected with magic. These all still apply when the subject is put to its original use. In its modern use, it has no connection with positive emotion or magic, and is still inscribed in the sense of being written down, though rarely (if ever) in the sense of being etched into a solid surface.

Wait, not Asian. Nevermind.

[Darren] We've already established that it is something that is written; if you're asking if the subject is the overall concept of 'writing', then NO.
[Projoy] Is it a symbol of some kind? YES. (cheers from the audience)
[Dazed5] Is it Aboriginal... assuming you're talking about Australian aborigines here, then NO.

[Projoy] I can't speak for your keyboard, but it's not on mine.
[Rosie] A Greek letter? NO.

[Kim] Is it a rune? YES.
[Projoy] On the ASCII character map for a regular Western font? Uncertain, but I've checked several common fonts and haven't been able to find it.
[Raak] Does it have a Unicode definition? YES.
[Chalky] A trademark? NO.
[Inkspot] A hieroglyph? NO.

[Raak] Star of David? NO.

[Raak] Not a star shape, no.

[Darren] Does it have any completely enclosed areas in its shape? YES.

[irach] Is it a triangle? NO.

[ImNotJohn] An ankh? NO.
[Raak] A cross of some sort? NO.
[Projoy] In Wingdings? I don't believe so.
[Inkspot] Did it originate in the Middle East? NO.

(You guys are drifting off the track; I suspect you're misreading one of the recent answers. Would you like me to provide clarification?)

[Projoy] Originally from the Futhark? Elder Futhark, YES. Younger Futhark, NO.
[Inkspot] Sowilo? NO.

(which I think is called odal or othalan)

(oooops)

As opposed to the Heimdall's Aett or Tyr's Aett

[CdM] Odal/Othalan? NO.
[Inkspot] Freyr/Freyja's Aett? YES.

[Raak] Thorn? NO.

[irach] Kenaz? NO.
[Inkspot] Wunjo/Wynn? YES. (cheers from the crowd)

Over to you, Inkspot...

---

... and I haven't the foggiest what all that was about. :) heyho

---

Yes, that was painfully obscure. My apologies! All I can say is that it seemed like a good idea at the time. :-p

---

[Inkspot] If I were you, I'd select a steam engine.

A win there with a little help from others, and learnt a little about runes in the process.

So a Abstract with Animal and Vegetable connections

[Raak]- no
[Chalky] - yes
[Kim] - no