Re: Number of writing systems

At 14:38 +0200 2005-09-17, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>[Blissymbolics] seems to me a very borderline thing, in that it
>doesn't appear to represent any specific spoken language,

It represents a specific non-spoken language, which a defined grammar
and vocabulary.

>and yet it does communicate meaning. To me it sounds like a graphic
>language, as opposed to a method to write a spoken language.

Its primary users are non-speaking people. Their carers speak, of
course, a variety of languages, and naturally use those along with
Blissymbols. But Bliss is not a cypher for them.

The primary users

>Adding Blissymbolics to my topic map would be quite difficult,
>because it would require extending the ontology enough to be able to
>describe it.

Well Blissymbolics is a fact, so you had better extend your ontology.

>I'd probably need a new script type (and have to debate with myself
>whether or not it really is a script type), and also a new category
>of scripts, etc

Blissymbols are ideographic in a rather pure sense. They represent
(in themselves) not sounds, but words or ideas.

>I agree with Daniels here: the intended use for the IPA is different
>from that of Latin. IPA is meant to be used to communicate details
>of pronunciation, whereas Latin is meant to communicate language.
>There is a shared subset of symbols, but that doesn't make them the
>same script.

Well, that's just absurd. Latin letters are used to represent sounds,
normally in a regular way called orthography. IPA is just a large set
of (mostly) Latin letters well-suited to very precise nuances of
sound. Saying that IPA eng is a different script from Sami eng is
simply wrong.

>I find the way IPA is used in practice quite revealing: dictionaries
>and encyclopedias etc switch between Latin and IPA.

No. They write words in English or German or whatever orthography,
and they write those words also in IPA orthography. Saying that IPA
"m" is a different script from Polish "m" is simply wrong.

>It's quite clear what is written in IPA, and what is written in
>Latin, and even if some characters are shared, they must be
>interpreted differently depending on which script they appear in.

Orthography. Not script.

>(Latin "a" and IPA "a" are not pronounced the same in an English dictionary.)

Pronunciation is irrelevant. The Latin letter "c" is pronounced
perhaps more different ways in Latin languages than any other, but it
is still Latin letter "c".

>So to me it seems quite obvious that there are different scripts,
>where one is a natural script and the other a phonetic script.

No. A subset of the Latin script is used to write Swahili in natural
orthography, and a somewhat larger subset of the Latin script may be
used to represent Swahili in phonetic notation orthography. Saying
that IPA "s" is a different script from Swahili "s" is simply wrong.
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com