i18n@... wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > deaf children of language was not on topic in the first place -- the
> > window was opened by someone's false claim that ASL is "partly based on
> > writing."
> Why is it false? I don't know one way or the other.

The aspect of signed communication that is "based on writing" is finger
spelling, which isn't part of ASL.

> But if by writing systems we take the extended definition of "non-verbal
> ways to communicate verbal (spoken) languages, it seems like it would

Well, _we_ don't "take" that "extended definition," because if we did,
we'd still need a word for writing, so why not use the existing one?

> fit. And that definitions seems like a resonable extension of what you
> are probably going to say is a better definition that hinges o n the
> definition of writing as an act of creating contrasting marks on a
> surface of some kind.

Signed languages are not "non-verbal ways to communicate verbal (spoken)
languages." They are languages, pure and simple, with no foundation in
any spoken language.

> So what about the gray area in between? How are ASL (or similar systems
> if they exist) classified? Not verbal, not written, but what? Are there
> other categories too?

They are languages, and they happen to use a different modality from
spoken langauges. The linguistic structures of signed languages are the
same as the linguistic structures of spoken languages.

A "written language" is something completely different: a (somewhat,
most of the time) formalized variety of a spoken language.

> Is it worth studying the relationship of 'writing systems" in the
> narrower sense to the other systems (verbal, unnamed as yet/ASL-like,
> e.g.)? If so, is that fair game for qalam? If not fair game, why not?

My book (WWS) is about the relation of writing systems to language, and
it includes a description of a widely used notation for ASL (p. 863).

> Not debating here, just trying to learn and understand your remarks
> clearly. So I regret I have to ask ahead of time, but please be
> thoughtful and not snide in your remarks.

Am I safe in inferring that you've never had an introductory linguistics
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...