From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 6041
Date: 2005-09-17
>All this (from Blissymbolics through Swahili) shows is that your usage
> 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.