LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  October 2006

ISOJAC October 2006

Subject:

Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion

From:

Christian Galinski <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:42:11 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (146 lines)

I think we can all agree that 
(1) language is not the only form of inter-human communication (which also
includes non-verbal communication)
(2) spoken and written language are two different systems, which only in
rather few cases - compared to the number of languages in the world - can be
considered a sort of "unity" (especially with respect to the socalled
"standard language")
(3) i.e. the variations of spoken language and written language somehow
overlap, but do not fully "match"
Bliss himself wrote his main work "International Semantography: A
non-alphabetical Symbol Writing readable in all languages" - so it is rather
a writing system than a language (or a /relatively language-independent/
writing system for more or less any language). Today we have a code for
scripts and codes for languages ...

I am not against coding of Blisssymbols as such - the question is, do we
have to do this in ISO 639 or in ISO 15924. (The Chinese script also had
this function - e.g. writing old Vietnamese with Chinese characters or
Japnese kanbun.) In any case we need some rules for later cases...
 
Grds
Christian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Christian Galinski, Director
Infoterm - International Information Centre for Terminology
Mariahilfer Strasse 123/3, A-1060 Vienna, Austria
T: +43-664-344 6181
[log in to unmask]  -  http://www.infoterm.info
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Founded in 1971 by UNESCO to promote and organize 
co-operation in the field of terminology worldwide
__________________________________________________
THIS E-MAIL HAS BEEN SCANNED FOR ALL KNOWN VIRUSES

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Peter Constable
Sent: Montag, 30. Oktober 2006 07:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss -
Discussion

That fits my (admittedly very limited) understanding of this form of
communication.

Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Debbie Garside
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss -
Discussion

Michael wrote:
 
> Blissymbols also needs a language code.

I am inclined to agree with Michael on this.  In order to facilitate access
to Bliss via search engines in the future Bliss will need to have a language
code that can be incorporated within RFC4646.  I am firmly of the opinion
that it should have a language code.

Best regards

Debbie



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
> Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: 28 October 2006 14:58
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - 
> Discussion
> 
> At 16:49 +0200 2006-10-28, Christian Galinski wrote:
> >according to wikipedia:
> >Blissymbolics or Blissymbols were conceived of as an ideographic 
> >writing system consisting of several hundred basic symbols,
> 
> Characters, not symbols. About 900.
> 
> >each representing a concept, which can be composed together
> to generate
> >new symbols
> 
> Words, not symbols.
> 
> >that represent new concepts.
> 
> Lexical items.
> 
> >Blissymbols differ from all the world's major writing
> systems in that
> >the characters do not correspond at all to the sounds of any spoken 
> >language.
> 
> Yes, it is an example of a purely ideographic writing system.
> 
> >If that is the case, then Bliss:
> >- can be subsumed under artificial languages (but rather in
> the meaning
> >of written language)
> 
> No. Yes, it is an artificial language, but it is not Ido, or 
> Esperanto, or Klingon, which can also be subsumed under artificial 
> languages. There is however a need to distinguist "xbl" from other 
> "art" languages.
> 
> >- is independent of any spoken language (at least in principle)
> 
> Yes, it is a non-spoken language. It is glossed in spoken languages, 
> but those may range from English to Swedish to Kazakh to Hebrew.
> 
> Bliss has its own grammar and syntax, which differs from that of 
> English, Swedish, Kazakh, or Hebrew. It is definitely a language.
> 
> >- constitutes a sort of interlingual semantic (ideographic / 
> >pictographic ... anyhow "pasigraphic") writing system.
> 
> Well, that's what Charles Bliss thought he was creating. 
> That's not what we need a code for. We need a code for modern users 
> for whom Bliss is the only language through which they can express 
> themselves.
> 
> >I do not think that we should give it any ISO 639 identifyer
> - which is
> >a problem in view of a great number of users.
> >Question to Micheal Everson: why not code it in the script code?
> 
> As a writing system, it does have a script code, Blis. N'Ko also has 
> both a script code Nkoo, and a language code nqo.
> Blissymbols also needs a language code.
> --
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> 
> 
> 
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
January 2021
November 2020
June 2020
May 2019
February 2019
September 2018
April 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
May 2016
April 2016
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager