Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>
> >* Mark E. Shoulson
> >|
> >| I note that Shavian is there, but Visible Speech isn't.
> >
> >The artificial scripts section is admittedly somewhat spotty. The
> >phonetics part is even worse.
> >
> >
> Visible Speech just doesn't get the coverage it deserves... Well, when
> we can get it into Unicode, we'll have something to start with.
Mike MacMahon was very kind to it in WWS.
> >| Nor Blissymbolics.
> >
> >Yep.
> >
> >
> Should it be?
By my definition, no. (See my review of Rogers's textbook, posted here
recently.)
> >| Does the IPA count as a writing system, or is it just an extended
> >| form of Latin?
> >
> >I'd consider it a phonetic writing system, like Dania. (Whether it
> >should count or not depends what you want to count. :)
> >
> >
> And I'd have considered it an extended use of Latin, actually.
Which is more important: Form, or function?
> >| And the International Teaching Alphabet? And Unifon?
> >
> >Dunno.
> >
> >
> Those are... um... modifications of Latin? Modified enough to be
> "different"? Probably, yeah. They're not just special fonts.
NB ita has no caps -- just bigger forms of the letters.
> >| We have Rongorongo, but not the Phaistos disk inscription. Does
> >| that count as a writing system?
> >
> >It's not clear that it is one, and almost nothing is known about it,
> >so I've preferred to leave it out.
> >
> >
> Fair enough.
>
> >| The question is probably no easier to resolve than how many angels
> >| can dance on the head of a pin, but I suppose any list is a start.
> >
> >What's really needed is some definition of what it is that's being
> >counted. Given that it's possible to produce a matching list.
> >
> >
> A great many issues can be resolved if the underlying definition is
> spelled out. Naturally, that causes its own problems, as there will
> always be fights about the definition, and there probably isn't one
> that's going to satisfy everyone. But yeah, defining your terms will help.
--
Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@...