Agustín Barahona wrote:

>
> Dear Mr. Daniels,
>
> I regret it hasn't been quite clear that when I said to Grendl «With "ñ" we have a new sign different from de original one indicating that another "n" was not written there but might be read» I was referring to the medieval Latin abbreviations system. That was the context. On the other hand, I must insist one more time that «the Spanish tilde virgulilla it's not a palatalization mark of the system because it doesn't belong to the system as a tool for marking palatalization»
>
> In your new message you are not talking about palatalization marks but about graphical distinctions. But I imagine you realize that, as I've said, one thing is to use a sign like a visual index in order to distinguish two signs (like when it's taught to little kids, for example) and another very different one is that that sign is a functional mark of the writing system. Otherwise, the rightmost stroke of "m", for example, could be considered as a mark of the written system -as so adequately poin

At what point did I _ever_ suggest it's "a functional mark of the
writing system"? Its entire function in Spanish is to distinguish the
letter for the palatal nasal from the letter for the alveolar nasal. I
don't see how you can deny that.

> By the way, just a minor correction, the "n" is not in Spanish a dental phoneme but an alveolar one.

How English of it!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...