i18n@... wrote:

>
> 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.

Have I not been doing so for weeks?

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

Which definitions seem vague, what's vague about the area, and why is
that OK?

Note that postings made Friday were not published until Tuesday. Is
qalam now to be a semiweekly list?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...