At 12:30 -0800 2003-12-12, John Hudson wrote:

>At 05:28 AM 12/12/2003, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>Is there reason to believe that this is a writing system, that is, a set
>>of graphic symbols and rules for their use, such that any utterance in
>>its language can be reproduced identically without the intervention of
>>the utterer?
>
>To confirm the implication of this definition: you are saying that all
>writing systems must be in some way phonetically based, and that
>non-phonetically based sets of graphic symbols and rules for their use are
>*not* writing systems?

No, he's not saying that. He mentioned cheretic/cheremic as well as
phonetic/phonemic distinctions earlier. His question is sound. A
writing system needn't be phonetically based, but it must be possible
to get to sounds (or motions for Sign Languages) from one. I know,
Han characters often have a phonetic component, but they also often
do not; Cuneiform characters often have a half-dozen readings. Yet
there are rules, and people who learn the rules can read texts they
didn't write.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com