Re: "kaida" pictographic script and "suuchuuma" numerals

At 04:26 PM 12/12/2003, Peter T. Daniels 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.

I thought you were, but you can see why I asked for clarification. It is
pretty obvious from this discussion that none of us should be making
assumptions about what each other mean, but should look for definitions and
clarifications. We have people coming from a number of different
backgrounds, using the same or similar terms in different ways, trying to
make sense of statements that rely on those terms. It is a mess. Sure, I
can identically reproduce any utterance that you write, but that doesn't
mean I've understood what you've written.

John Hudson

Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@...

What was venerated as style was nothing more than
an imperfection or flaw that revealed the guilty hand.
- Orhan Pamuk, _My name is red_