From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 6190
Date: 2005-10-06
>No, I have stated my definition of "writing system," under which
> 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 activitiesYou will need to explicate this. A writing system is an auxiliary means
> 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?No. (As a linguist, of course, I include those who use Sign among