Re: Number of writing systems

At 14:13 -0400 2005-10-04, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > The definition is not absolute, as the facts about the world's
>> writing systems are not absolute.
>
>(a) When was that posting? Why have you never alluded to it before?

I don't remember, and I don't have time to dig in the archives right
now, but it was a few weeks ago. I didn't allude to it because I am
busy.

>(b) Until you do so, you have no warrant whatsoever for insisting that
>Blyssymbolics is a writing system -- which it cannot be if it is, as you
>state, a language.

You are at fault because you are being absolutist. Human activities
are not always easily pigeonholed. Blissymbolics, like SignWriting,
is a way of writing non-spoken "utterances". Sign Language is a
language. And Blissymbolics is a language. Bliss is unique in being
*both*.

Have you ever met a non-speaking person?
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com