Michael Everson wrote:

>
> 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.

All this (from Blissymbolics through Swahili) shows is that your usage
of the terminology is extremely different from linguists' use of this
terminology. It's unfortunate that you (pl.) took the same words that
had been current in linguistics for a century or so and gave them
different interpretations.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...