node_ue wrote:
>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > John Hudson wrote:
> > >
> > > At 05:25 AM 12/12/2003, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > >(For me, "Latin" script is the 23 letters used for writing
> Latin.)
> > >
> > > So is the approx. 26 letters used for writing English
> the 'English script'?
> > >
> > > For me, these subsets of signs are respectively the Latin
> alphabet and the
> > > English alphabet. You appear to be using script as a generic term,
> > > interchangeable with any of the more precise terms alphabet,
> syllabery,
> > > abugida, etc.; whereas I, and I suspect various other people in
> this
> > > discussion, would be more inclined to use the term 'writing
> system' in this
> > > generic way (the Latin writing systems = the Latin alphabet), and
> reserve
> > > the term script for the superset of signs from which particular
> writing
> > > systems are derived. I've found this usage useful, and obviously
> others
> > > have as well; if you have a better terminology that describes the
> > > relationship of the particular to the general in this way, please
> tell us.
> >
> > Why would I use a term for something that doesn't need to be
> referred
> > to?
>
> Now, now, Pete, are you really one to decide whether or not
> something "needs to be referred to"?
>
> (correct answer: no)

Who's Pete?

If I don't need to refer to it, why would I have a term? (Are you not a
native speaker?)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...