Michael Everson wrote:
> 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.

No, I have stated my definition of "writing system," under which
Blissymbolics doesn't qualify. You now say you have a different one,
under which it does.

> 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*.

You will need to explicate this. A writing system is an auxiliary means
of representing a language, not a language in itself. Someone at
sci.lang is just now claiming that writing must have preceded speaking,
because our ancestors might have scratched imitations of an antelope's
track in the dirt to enlighten other hunters. This is not a productive
use of the term "writing."

> Have you ever met a non-speaking person?

No. (As a linguist, of course, I include those who use Sign among
speaking persons.) Except for those whose dementia has proceeded so far
that they are not capable of communicating semantic content beyond the
emotion level.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...