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
>
>
>
>
|