--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> suzmccarth wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > wrote:
> > > This idea certainly didn't begin with DeFrancis -- it was
> > recognized by
> > > DuPonceau in 1838,
> >
> > DuPonceau's letter can be read here
>
> I'm referring to a book -- Chicago's copy was in Special

Collections,

> i.e. Rare Books, so it wasn't possible to actually read it through!
>
> > http://pinyin.info/readings/texts/duponceau.html

Did you follow the link. I believe it really is from that book you
mention. Here is the title.

"From A Dissertation on the Nature and Character of the Chinese
System of Writing, by Peter S. Du Ponceau. The book was published in
1838 as volume 2 of the Transactions of the Historical and Literary
Committee of the American Philosophical Society. For comments on
this work, see DeFrancis (1984)."

Pinyin.info is a great site with chapters from many books -
sometimes I read the chapter then go to the library to read the
entire book if it is available, but not in this case. Anyway the
letter is truly fascinating to read.

> As I keep saying, it isn't one! It's not used for recording

utterances,

> just for recording sound. Unless, of course, some here wish to

propose

> different definitions of "writing system."

I agree with you here - completely, I just wanted you to spell out
your reasoning, I wasn't paying attention the first time around,
(missed reading a few posts), I was thinking it wasn't a writing
system because it doesn't reflect the sound patterns of any given
language - but I bungled the phonetic/phonemic thing in this case,
seduced by the name, I guess.

Suzanne