Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> deaf children of language was not on topic in the first place -- the
> window was opened by someone's false claim that ASL is "partly based on
> writing."

Why is it false? I don't know one way or the other.

But if by writing systems we take the extended definition of "non-verbal
ways to communicate verbal (spoken) languages, it seems like it would
fit. And that definitions seems like a resonable extension of what you
are probably going to say is a better definition that hinges o n the
definition of writing as an act of creating contrasting marks on a
surface of some kind.

So what about the gray area in between? How are ASL (or similar systems
if they exist) classified? Not verbal, not written, but what? Are there
other categories too?

Is it worth studying the relationship of 'writing systems" in the
narrower sense to the other systems (verbal, unnamed as yet/ASL-like,
e.g.)? If so, is that fair game for qalam? If not fair game, why not?

Not debating here, just trying to learn and understand your remarks
clearly. So I regret I have to ask ahead of time, but please be
thoughtful and not snide in your remarks.

Best,

Barry