Glad to read you. Interesting... What is a writing system?
In my view, this may be one of the few questions that is, always,
pertinent in this forum, dismissing it would be accepting a defeat in
the understanding of writing systems.
Nevertheless, in my view, as well, the answer to the question above
may not be a "definition" with which to agree or to disagree.
Definitions are conventional, are formal, are systematic, ... but,
science is not the research of definitions, not of theories, science
researches nature or reality, so, in my view, if writing systems are
researched 'as natural' things a definition is not required... or,
better, a definition of writing system is a tentative answer about
what is a writing system, a definition is, just, a minimal theory
about what a writing system is. Note: A 'system' is not, properly
speaking, a natural thing, a system is rather a formal device, so,
that, whether a writing is to be taken as a system, or not, depends
not upon those who write but upon theorists. A writing may be
systematized or may be explained as matching a system, think there is
not such system in reality, because natural things have a history,
evolve, are irregular and chaotic besides matching more or less a
given form or system.
Now, there was, also, the question: Is Blissymbolics a writing system?
Is this a pertinent question in this forum? In my view, it is a
question about a category -classification- of writing systems,
therefore it is an epistemic question, it is not about the nature of
writing systems but about the taxonomy of writing systems. This
question is of a secondary interest and it can be dismissed, or taken
with interest, as long as inquiring into it depends wholly upon the
forum members interests.
Now, as an epistemic question whether 'Blissymbolics and Braille are
writing systems?' has called my interest and I wish to offer my view
on it. Blissymbolics, in my view, is a system of visual symbols which
represents -encodes- a language (think Blissymbolics does not encode
a "mother tonge" it encodes a "language"), therefore, at least,
because Blissymbolics i) is a system, ii) is visual, iii) is
symbolic, iv) is made by means of a tool and v) encodes a language,
it is, thus, reasonably, speaking, a writing system. Still more, the
notion of "language" which I am considering is not just for 'oral
languages' nor just for 'mother tonges', a language may have a
representation which may be auditive gestural (like spoken-English),
visual instrumental (like written-English, or Blissymbolics), visual
gestural (like would be a visual sign language), tactile instrumental
(like in Braille), tactile gestural (like would be a touch sign
language), ... or, may be, a mix of these (like English). I am
thinking in the notion of language as a means of communication
between individuals based upon some physical and biological
conditions, of which speech, writing, Braille, and other are mere
representations. In my view a language with a written representation
which might not have an oral representation is possible. Note: a case
of an auditive instrumental system of language representantion might
be the Morse code.
I think, that the case of Braille may not be of a writing system,
because when we consider languages represented in an oral gestural
manner we talk about "phonemic systems" or in a wider sense
about "phonologic systems", and when we talk about languages
represented in a visual instrumental manner we talk about "writing
systems", for Braille, as Braille is a touch symbolic instrumental
system of representation, we may talk accordingly of a new type of
language representations that may be well named "braille systems" or,
may be, "tactile written systems", or still more, may
be, "tactological system", etcetera.
Hope this is pertinent. Notice that I am not, at all, an expert in
writing systems, I am rather philosophizing.
Thank you.
Cordially,
mariano
P.S.: This is a second attempt to sent this message, as the first one
seems to not have succeded.