Michael Everson wrote:
> 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.

I certainly am.

> He mentioned cheretic/cheremic as well as
> phonetic/phonemic distinctions earlier.

(Mutatis mutandis for signed languages, of course.)

> His question is sound. A
> writing system needn't be phonetically based,

Name one that isn't.

> 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.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...