Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> i18n@... wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Neither IPA nor Visible Speech is a writing system -- it isn't
> used for
> > > writing, just phonetic transcription.
> >
> > Isn't that "writing" of a sort, using a system of symbols to transfer
> > meaning?
>
> They're not used for transferring meaning (as if that were a useful
> definition of "writing system"! that's a definiton of "semiotic
> system"), they're used for transferring information about phonetic
> properties.

Which is a subcategory of "meaning" or at least "information intended to
be transferred" by "writing" in a systematic manner, isn't it? Or is
there no meaning in "information about phonetic properties"? Or there is
meaning but the system for conveying them does not involve "writing"? Or
that the writing is not systematic in nature?

Come on Peter, don't argue semantics or look for a reason to get your
venom flowing. Just converse like "regular folk".

In your previous post in response to someone else you said:

"Since it isn't a scheme for recording
utterances in such a way that they can be recovered without the
intervention of the utterer, it's not writing."

Do IPA and Visible Speech meet this test in your opinion? Why or why not?

Just curious, and I am off for the weekend so won't see your response
until Monday...

Best,

Barry