From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 6613
Date: 2006-10-15
>(caps for distinctness, not for shouting)It was taken as shouting. If you want what you say to be read, please
>----
>Peter T. Daniels grammatim@... net
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Michael Everson <everson@... com>
>To: qalam@... com
>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:06:42 AM
>Subject: Re: FW: [M_L] Re: Languages with writing systems?
>
>At 05:27 -0700 2006-10-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>We have been through this before.
>>
>>Under what definition of "writing" is Blissymbolics a writing system?
>
>It is, um... written. With a pen. With chalk. With a computer.
>
>UNDER WHAT DEFINITION OF "WRITING" IS BLISSYMBOLICS A WRITING SYSTEM?
>
>>It may be a language that operates exclusively in a visual medium,
>>but it isn't a writing system.
>
>In my view, Bliss is a truly ideographic script.
>
>THEN IT IS IPSO FACTO NOT A WRITING SYSTEM -- A PURELY (I DON'T KNOW
>WHAT YOU MEAN BY "TRULY") IDEOGRAPHIC WRITING SYSTEM IS IMPOSSIBLE.
>
>>What language does it encode if it's a writing system?
>
>It's eponymous: The language is Blissymbols and its writing system
>has the same name.
>
>THAT'S JUST DUMB. IT WOULD BLEACH THE TERM "WRITING" OF ANY MEANING AT ALL.
>
>Of course cases like these are edge-cases. For years people did not
>believe that Signed languges were true languages, but we now know
>that they are. They have "phonemes" (a word we prefer to "kinemes" or
>whatever). They can be written, certainly, as SignWriting shows us.
>Bliss doesn't have "phonemes" because its users may suffer from a
>variety of maladies many of which prevent spoken language entirely.
>Its speakers *do* speak using language. It's just that their language
>is only written.
>
>IF YOU OUTLAW "PHONEMES" FOR BLISSYMBOLICS BECAUSE THEY DON'T
>INVOLVE SOUND, THEN YOU CAN'T USE "PHONEMES" FOR SIGNED LANGUAGES,
>AND YOU MIGHT AS WELL STICK WITH STOKOE'S TERM "CHEREMES." (I DON'T
>KNOW WHY HE CHOSE THAT PARTICULAR GREEK ROOT FOR HIS TERM.)
>
>IF BLISSYMBOLICS DOES NOT EXHIBIT DUALITY OF PATTERNING, THEN IT IS
>IPSO FACTO NOT A HUMAN LANGUAGE. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE
>SEEN MY COPY OF THE BOOK, AND I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS. I THINK
>IT DOES, THOUGH.
>
>I would not distinguish between "a language that operates exclusively
>in a visual medium" and "a written language" because, well, it's
>writing. I can write a sentence in Bliss with a pen on paper and
>follow it with an English translation, also written on paper.
>
>"A WRITTEN LANGUAGE" IS THE VISIBLY RECORDED VERSION OF A LANGUAGE.
>IF BLISSYMBOLICS IS A LANGUAGE, IT DOESN'T NEED A VISIBLY RECORDED
>VERSION OF ITSELF, BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY A VISIBLE RECORD ITSELF.
>
>YOU CAN ALSO RECORD AN ASL UTTERANCE IN STOKOE'S NOTATION (which
>I've just learned at sci.lang developed into something called
>"SignFont") AND FOLLOW IT WITH A SPOKEN ENGLISH TRANSLATION. IS ASL
>THEREBY A WRITTEN OR A SPOKEN LANGUAGE?
>--
>Michael Everson * http://www.evertype .com
>
>
>groups.yahoo. com/group/ qalam - world's writing systems.
>To unsubscribe: qalam-unsubscribe@ groups.yahoo. com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>