--- 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)