Talk:Writing system

Runic systems
How come "Runic Futhark" and "Anglo-Saxon Futhorc" both gets mentioned? The Old English variant is a bit different, I agree, but so is Slovene and Hungarian and German, you don't see them listed with special entries?? --Gabbe 00:07 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * I belive the Anglo-Saxon runes are are considered disctinct from the Germantic runes due to the addition of a number of letters (seven in all, if I remember correctly). Wether this justifies listing as a seperate writing system is debateable, but the Anglo-Saxon runes are a not simply specific usage of Germantic runes. -- Levi Aho 2004-12-21 13:32:27 (UTC)

Syllabaries vs. abugidas
I've always found this thing confusing. As I see it, in syllabaries, every syllable is represented by a grapheme, with usually no visual correspondence between related syllables. Whereas, in abugidas, there's a base syllable which is "modified" by markers, such as those for vowels in Devanagari. So why is it a given that abugidas have to have an inherent vowel (acc. to the article)? Why can't it be that the base grapheme in an abugida represents only the consonant? Or if such a writing system is termed something different, what would it be? Ambarish 29 June 2005 06:57 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a philosophical difference: are we simply not bothering to write /a/ (as most vowels are treated in an abjad), or do we have a bunch of true /pa ta ka/ etc. syllables that are modified for other vowels? I guess you could ask the same thing about tone in the Latin alphabet: if the three tones of a language are written á a à, does that mean that we simply aren't bothering to write mid tone, or does a have an inherent mid tone that is modified by adding diacritics? Not so straightforward.


 * It's probably best to consider how the script is conceived of by the people who use it. Being raised with a (true) alphabet, it's easy for us to see abugidas as alphabetical. However, Ethiopic (the prototypical abugida) is learned and treated as a syllabary: each CV combination is learned and read as a separate syllable; similarities between syllables are simply convenient mnemonics. Thus the old label "alphasyllabary": alphabetic in conception, but syllabic in use. Something similar occurs with Hangul: its conception may be featural, but it's learned and used just like an alphabet.


 * I don't know how Indian abugidas are conceived of by their users. However, given the natural human bias toward syllabaries, I wouldn't be surprised if each basic letter were considered an inherent syllable by most users. kwami 20:23, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Grapheme vs Character
This article treats the terms grapheme and character as synonymous, but the article on graphemes does not mention "character" at all. Please see my comment on Talk:Grapheme. I am mainly interested in providing as much disambiguation as possible between this usage of "character" and character (computing). Thanks &mdash;mjb 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

Question on external link
I don't understand the relevancy of the link "A Typographic Outcry: a curious perspective". Can someone elaborate? The link also exists in Logogram and Chinese character.

Atzin contreras cruz xv
Hold iglish leters 24.11.124.223 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

618670092
Cabdimaxamedmuxumd 197.220.90.39 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by Jacobtristano (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Gkvibvykxuykf bhi
fjvyfxukxinb

Gibib Hknbk 36.37.197.33 (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

General properties of writing material
General properties of writing material 39.50.226.1 (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Library science
General properties of writing material 39.50.226.1 (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 39 39.50.226.1 (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Asaba
Asaba Mahammad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.191.61.153 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Chinese characters
In |this edit, user:Remsense changed this
 * A similar debate exists for the Chinese script, which developed around 1200 BC.

into this
 * Chinese characters were developed independently c. 1200 BC in the Yellow River valley. There is no evidence of contact between China and the literate peoples of the Near East, and the Mesopotamian and Chinese approaches to logography and phonetic representation are distinct.

without changing the source. I do not have access to the source, but it looks like we now may have text not supported by the source given. Can someone please either verify, possibly replace the source, or revert the change? Nø (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I am taking another pass as we speak, thank you for your vigilance. Remsense  诉  20:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nø, Bagley's chapter does not imply any actual debate among experts that Chinese characters may have been inspired by existing writing from Mesopotamia or Egypt. Remsense  诉  21:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, if the current text correctly reflects the source, all is good - thank you! Nø (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Split into Glossary
There's a lot of vertical space in this article that could potentially be fashioned into a WP:Glossary article, maybe Glossary of writing systems. thoughts? Remsense 诉  23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

“Representation” in lede
Before February, the first sentence was: "A writing system is a method of visually representing verbal communication based on a script and an orthography or set of rules regulating its use." Currently it is: "A writing system comprises a particular set of symbols, called a script, as well as the rules by which the script represents a particular spoken language." Representing “verbal communication” is something different than “a particular spoken language” – and the former better describes what a writing system actually does. — Christoph Päper 09:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * [Representing verbal communication] better describes what a writing system actually does
 * Not as far as I can tell from sources. While this is one of the stickiest wickets imaginable, writing tends to be defined by linguists and lexicographers as representing spoken language. Remsense  诉  10:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the two versions say the same, except for one thing: Where the old says "verbal communication", the new says "a particular spoken language". In reality, I suppose "verbal communication" means "spoken language" (what else?), and a script representing it will represent a "specific language" (what else?), making this difference rather unimportant. I kind of dislike both definitions; I think writing could exist without link to spoken language, e.g., ideograms unrelated to phonetic value. Even if that is rare-to-nonexistent in the real world, a hypothetical pure ideogram system should and would be considered writing, I think. But what I think does not matter; sources and experts do. So I ask: Is there any real difference in the circumscription of "writing" implied by the two versions? Nø (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an incredible gap between "communication" and "language"—for one thing, many non-human animals are capable of the former but have never satisfactorily demonstrated the latter. "Verbal communication" is a needlessly roundabout way to say "language", and may be more easily conflated with "vocal communication".
 * Relatedly, the ability to represent spoken language is indeed present in most coherent definitions of "writing" and "writing system" I've read in the literature. Due to the first difference being enormous, this too is an enormous difference. Remsense  诉  11:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The current wording simply sounds like phonocentrism. While some scholars subscribe to it, it’s not consensus at all.
 * You cannot have a writing system without a language, but can even have multiple ones (e.g. Chinese). Every human language has a spoken form, which can be vocal-aural or gestural-visual. Some languages have multiple written forms, which are usually visual or tactile.
 * What I have an issue with is the notion that a writing system governs how a written language represents a spoken language, because in reality their relationship is always way more complex and by no means unidirectional. Meanwhile, “spoken” has been removed from the sentence, which makes it a lot bette already. — Christoph Päper 17:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that "represents" creates that connotation, which I myself also have the same issue with. What do you suggest to improve it? Remsense  诉  23:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this, and would replacing "language" with "written language" suffice? It feels a bit tautological to me, but I'm not sure how else to get across that writing represents and is in itself language. Remsense  诉  15:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)