Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> i18n@... wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > > suzmccarth wrote:
> > > > Maybe a simpler definition of writing system is needed. What do you
> > > > think of this? "A writing system is a pairing of a script and a
> > > > language." Do you know whose expression this is? It sounds like
> > > > something Joshua Fishman might have said.
> > >
> > > Then you have to define "script."
> > >
> > > But this can't be Michael's definition either.
> > > --
> > > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
> >
> > What would be *your* definition? surely you are qualified enough to
> > posit a pretty good one, no?
>
> As has been published in many, many places, my definition is:
>
> "A system of more or less permanent marks used to represent an utterance
> in such a way that it can be recovered more or less exactly without the
> intervention of the utterer."

Thanks for answering...

>
> Perhaps it was foolish of me to expect the readers of this list to have
> been aware of that.
>
> Now that you've attempted to call my bluff, and exposed your own
> shortcomings, as David Niven once memorably put it, why don't you share
> Michael's definition, since he seems to have retreated into a defensive
> shell of silence?

Wow you are reading way too much into it. You routinely ask people to
clarify their definitions. I just wanted to make sure everyone had a
copy of yours handy so I asked you to do what you ask of others all the
time.

If you want someone else's definition, I suggest you ask him or her
directly yourself.

The definitions seems vague, but it is a vague area, so that is OK by
me. I was just wondering...

Thanks again.

Best,

Barry