From: node_ue
Message: 1893
Date: 2003-12-13
> node_ue wrote:term,
> >
> > --- 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
> > > > interchangeable with any of the more precise terms alphabet,in
> > syllabery,
> > > > abugida, etc.; whereas I, and I suspect various other people
> > thisand
> > > > discussion, would be more inclined to use the term 'writing
> > system' in this
> > > > generic way (the Latin writing systems = the Latin alphabet),
> > reserveparticular
> > > > the term script for the superset of signs from which
> > writingobviously
> > > > systems are derived. I've found this usage useful, and
> > othersthe
> > > > have as well; if you have a better terminology that describes
> > > > relationship of the particular to the general in this way,please
> > tell us.I'm sorry Pete, I'm afraid I wasn't aware of your long-term memory
> > >
> > > 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)
>
> Who's Pete?
> If I don't need to refer to it, why would I have a term?You may not have your own term if you don't need to refer to it. But
>(Are you not a native speaker?)Yes, I am a native speaker. And you?