Re: script count?

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> node_ue wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > wrote:
> > > node_ue wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- 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)
> > >
> > > Who's Pete?
> >
> > I'm sorry Pete, I'm afraid I wasn't aware of your long-term memory
> > problem. I'll try to accommodate your situation. You can best re-
> > acquaint yourself with Pete by looking in a mirror.

> Nope, no one here referred to by that term.

Really? When did you decide to leave the group? Is it for-sure?

> > > 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

> > who are you to decide whether or not anyone at all needs to refer

to

> > something? ("...for something that doesn't need to be referred

to")

> >
> > >(Are you not a native speaker?)
> >
> > Yes, I am a native speaker.
>
> Couldn't tell from your responses in this thread.

Maybe because you're yourself not a native speaker?

> > And you?
>
> Perhaps you should be sharing your talents with a newsgroup rather

than

> with a professional discussion list.

I notice you didn't answer my question. Perhaps you are ashamed of
the fact that English is not your first language? You know, that's
nothing to be ashamed of. You can tell us now, Pete, it's OK.

And I find that I like it here, perhaps you should make your way to a
newsgroup rather than keep posting to this professional discussion
list? It's your choice whether or not you do so.

Oh, come now, Pete, do you *honestly* think you can just tell others
they should leave the group and they'll just say "Oh, yes, Peter, you
are right because you always are because you are the most intelligent
person on earth superior to everybody else! Please allow me the honor
of worshipping you as the one true god!"? It's not really very
realistic, but you may believe in what you choose.

Best Wishes,
Mark