> At 19:26 -0500 2003-12-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > >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.
> >I certainly am.
> You're positing that writing systems for non-oral languages such as
> sign languages without sounds, then?
> > > He mentioned cheretic/cheremic as well as
> >> phonetic/phonemic distinctions earlier.
> >(Mutatis mutandis for signed languages, of course.)
> Ah, you are including soundless languages. In which case I am right,
> when I say in response to what John says, that you are not excluding
> soundless languages.
> > > His question is sound. A writing system needn't be phonetically based,
> >Name one that isn't.
> SignWriting and other notation systems for Sign Languages. Blissymbols.
Are you being deliberately dense?
Or do you not know "mutatis mutandis"?
And you are a long way from demonstrating that Blissymbolics (which
needs another <s>) is some sort of human language. I have a book
presenting it (perhaps it's developed further since), and it doesn't
seem to be anything different from Wilkins or Leibniz or anything else
described by Eco from the last 4 or 5 centuries.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...