Nicholas Bodley wrote:

>
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 07:33:22 -0500, Peter T. Daniels
> <grammatim@...> wrote:
>
> > Icons are not writing because they do not "represent an utterance in
> > such a way that the utterance can be recovered more or less exactly
> > without the intervention of the utterer."
>
> All-righty. OK with me! Nothing like a world authority's clarification.
> I'll accept the close connection with utterance (which, by the way,
> encompasses more than speech, as I hear it).

? An utterance is a stretch of speech.

> Clearly, this implies that, say, all Unicode code points correspond to
> utterances (unless they are "control" characters, in a broad sense, such
> as the zero-width non-joiner, for instance). (P.S.: But wait...)

?

> On further thought, though, browsing through Unicode 3.0 (bound volume), I
> see in Arabic and some Asian (not CJ, nor Korean) Signs of various kinds,
> as well as letterlike symbols and Misc. Tech. (U+2300 ff.) There are many
> more. While none of these is an icon, I do think that at least some of
> them, and punctuation in some cases (end of paragraph, or such) do not
> routinely correspond to utterances.

?

> A question comes to mind: Does this then mean that inclusion into Unicode
> signifies that such symbols, etc. are not part of the world's writing
> systems?

?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...