Re: phoneticism. phonemicism, signed lg writing...

>Patrick Chew wrote
> > "Sign linguists" are still linguists... the precedent set for phone/phoneme
> > for spoken languages is still analogically applicable to signed languages,
> > right? Even within signed languages, the "phonetic"/contextual variations
> > of idealized/citation forms/shapes/"phonemes" mimic what we observe in
> > spoken languages - why would conceptual distinctions (read: the Wheel) need
> > to be re-invented?

>At 11:09 PM 12/12/2003, Peter Daniels wrote:
>That was what I was presuming as too obvious to need to be stated, and
>Michael seemed to presume was excluded.

If I recall correctly, it started with your assertion that writing systems
*had to be* phonetic-based to be considered writing systems, and the
example(s) given included SignWriting.

I'm actually still curious and needing clarification.

Are you (Mr. Peter Daniels) making the statement that for a set of "glyphs"
to be considered a writing system, the whole must be phonetic based? or
that it must at least contain some portion which has base in the phonetics
of the relevant spoken language?

pardon my grasp of the situation,
-Patrick