i18n@... wrote:

>
> 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?

Sheesh. What is the meaning of "meaning" when discussing language?

Not all information, as this example makes obvious, is "meaning."

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

Are you truly incapable of making a posting without a nasty remark?

> 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?

Did you manage to forget the passage you quoted at the top of this very
posting, answering exactly that question?

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

Is that an attempt at being passive-aggressive? (The same one tried
Labor Day weekend.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...