From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 3192
Date: 2004-07-16
>"Writing is defined as _a system of more or less permanent marks used to
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >
> >>John Cowan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Well, he has a broad view of writing if it includes face painting!
> >>>Writing is generally understood to be the communication of linguistic
> >>>material in visual form, which excludes most of his examples (they
> >>>communicate, but what is communicated is not linguistic).
> >>>
> >>I'd have to agree there. Well.... there might be some wiggle-room;
> >>Sampson (I recall) gives an example in his book of a semasiography (??
> >>I might have completely misremembered this term), which manages to
> >>relate a very specific and coherent letter, but all through stylized
> >>drawings and conventions, not related to a specific language at all
> >>(mathematical notation might be considered a small version of this,
> >>since the math involved is not related to a specific language too).
> >
> >The point of that example is that meaning can be communicated _without_
> >reference to a specific linguistic form; thus it's not writing by any
> >useful definition of writing. See DeFrancis passim.
> >
> Mm, I probably misremembered the context. Reasonable enough. So this
> is communication by symbols, without language, while writing is
> *language* in symbols. I'll buy that.