--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:

> Suzanne,
>
> I think it's odd that your argument is an appeal to a 1989 and a

1968

> authority. Neither SignWriting nor Blissymbolics were available to
> those researchers, so it is hardly surprising that they did not

take

> such non-phonic writing systems into account.

Blissymbolics were used in Ontario in the 70's. Is there some reason
Coulmas would not have access to this knowledge? I believe Bliss
published in 1949.

Bliss was inspired by his perception of Chinese as a ideographic
writing system. However, since DeFrancis published Visible Speech in
1989, writing systems have been considered to represent *phonology*
in one way or another. The ideographic myth, the notion that a
writing system could represent language independent of phonology,
was challenged by DeFrancis.

Some of these matters are worth discussing but your bibliography
suggests that you are not interested in Bloomfield, Chao, DeFrancis,
Sproat, etc.

I realize that I was also scolded last year for not having read the
right stuff. However, I at least have the sense to go back and do
so. Reread it, in my case.

> >I was trying to stay out of it but I have caved. There is

agreement

> >in the academic community on writing sytems,
>
> Is there, indeed?

The published academic community usually acknowledges a degree of
consensus here, and if variation from that consensus is presented,
then this is noted.

>
> >"Every writing is language specific in the sense that
> >phoneticization means to create systematic relations between
> >graphical signs and the sound pattern of a given language." --

The

> >Writing Systems of the World by Florian Coulmas, 1989, page 33
>
> Coulmas' definition is incomplete. Not all languages use sounds.

Sign

> languages do not use sound, though they have analogues to phonemes
> and they certainly have grammar. And they can be *written*.
> SignWriting is a writing system, a real writing system, which is

used

> by people all over the world.

There is no doubt these systems are important and worth discussing.
The terminology is opaque, and may have led to some
misunderstanding.

> I cannot fathom how anyone could suggest with a straight face that
> IPA is not a "writing system".

It does not represent a given language, so it would not be used as a
first literacy for any language community. It does not represent
phonemes, but phonetics. However, I must remind myelf that you are
not familiar with Kenneth Pike either. It is one thing to disagree,
I am all for that, but downright unwillingness to be a student of
writing systems, that is intolerable.

Suzanne