Re: Number of writing systems

At 21:37 -0400 2005-09-16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Blissymbolics is certainly a writing system, and I know people who
>> are literate in it and in no other writing system.
>
>Define "writing system." Since it isn't a scheme for recording
>utterances in such a way that they can be recovered without the
>intervention of the utterer, it's not writing.

This is incorrect. Blissymbolics *is* a language, and for the
non-speaking people who use it, it is often the *only* language which
they can express themselves in. People who express themselves in
Blissymbolics create text, parseable, recoverable text. Text that can
be sent in a letter, or by e-mail, like any other written text, and
read by another person, without the intervention of the utterer.

>It's said to be useful for people who are unable to use conventional
>writing systems, but they're not recording language with it.

It is used by non-speaking people, often as a primary, and sometimes
as a secondary, language. It is truly ideographic language, which
makes it unique. But language it surely is.
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com