--- "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> Michael Everson wrote:
> >
> > At 14:23 -0400 2005-09-30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > > > Since 6 September I have been in Senegal,
> France, Ireland, New York,
> > > > Seattle, and am now in Vancouver, going to
> Portland, Jacksonville,
> > > > and Doylestown over the next fortnight, and
> this matter simply
> > > > doesn't have priority for me at the immediate
> moment. I am *busy*.
> > >
> > >Long before 6 September you were asked for your
> definition of "writing
> > >systems," yet you continue not to provide one.
> You certainly had enough
> > >time for contentless argumentative postings,
> addressed especially to
> > >Suzanne.
> >
> > Actually, I already did provide a definition, but
> you overlooked it,
> > embedded in one of my messages. But then, you
> don't read what I write
> > very carefully. When I have time, I will dig it
> out and polish it up
> > in a more obvious fashion. This is not a priority
> for me, and I am
> > unlikely to get to it for a fortnight.
> >
> > 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?
>
> (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.

Blyssymbolics is a written-only language.
Blyssymbolics is a language without a writing system.
A writing system is clearly not a system of writing.

Everybody got that?

Andrew Dunbar.

> --
> Peter T. Daniels
> grammatim@...
>
>
>

http://en.wiktionary.org -- http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com