i18n@... wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >
> > Neither IPA nor Visible Speech is a writing system -- it isn't used for
> > writing, just phonetic transcription.
>
> Isn't that "writing" of a sort, using a system of symbols to transfer
> meaning?

They're not used for transferring meaning (as if that were a useful
definition of "writing system"! that's a definiton of "semiotic
system"), they're used for transferring information about phonetic
properties.

Someone, very early in my time at Chicago (it might have been Howard
Aronson in Phonology) told the story of a noted linguist at an early
meeting of the IPA who (for some reason) had to deliver his speech in
English (which he didn't speak). A careful phonetic transcription of his
remarks was prepared. He read the remarks flawlessly and the audience
didn't understand. Another linguist under the same circumstances had his
speech translated into English and written with standard orthography. He
read it, again not understanding the text, and the audience understood.
(I wish I could remember who it was told about.)

> > with minimal
> > redundancy and considerable potential ambiguity.
>
> Does IPA or Visible speech have these features? I don't really know, I
> am asking the list at large....

That was my description of shorthand, explaining why it wouldn't be a
good general-purpose writing system.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...