Talk:Blissymbol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project’s quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project’s importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Constructed languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about constructed languages, aka conlangs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
If listing this article for deletion or if there is an active edit war, please post a note here. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the class scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
I don't see how this can realistically be put under the category "Jewish languages" -- it makes no sense, this is not in the same class as Hebrew or Yiddish, it's an auxiliary language for everyone. What's going on? -- The Anome 01:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
any idea what the excerpt is blissymols means??
- According to Image:Blissymbols-spaceshipone.jpg, it refers to "the landing of Space Ship One". — Chameleon 09:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added Blissymbolics to the [ideogram] page. Langmaker claims there are 4000 items in the vocabulary, not 900. I've read about an extraordinary user of Bliss that was fluent in 800 symbols (this was regarding a Bliss to English translation system) in 1994 - 1996. Point being that there are various interpretations as to the size of the lexicon. Still, 900 seems short. There is a Bliss font that was submitted, the request available in PDF form, that may at least extend this number. Additionally, new symbols can be created from the existing ideograms, making the hard-count as loose as a hard-count of the lexicon of any other language. Downchuck 06:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Items in a vocabulary is a different thing from the number of characters. Evertype 08:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Why is the translation for "I want to go to the cinema listed if it later says it's incorrect? Isn't it possible to edit this image? Maybe I am not understanding something? DoYouKnow
[edit] Ideographic writing
It may be the case that "John DeFrancis and J. Marshall Unger have argued that genuine ideographic writing systems, with the same capacities as natural languages, do not exist", but that does not mean (1) that they are right and (2) that they looked at Blissymbols. So the suggestion that "this implies a limitation on the claims made about Blissymbolics as a communicative system, whatever their practical uses may be" simply doesn't say anything useful. What does it mean? Bliss *is* a communicative system. Evertype 11:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I removed "but it is likely that they have not examined Blissymbols, hence the claim that Blissymbols may in fact be the exception that proves the rule." Certainly DeFrancis and Unger are aware of Blissymbolics. Unger, for instance, specifically deals with them over several pages in the first chapter of his book Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning.
- I'm not happy about this edit. In the first place, it's anonymous. In the second place, you haven't shown that DeFrancis was aware of Blissymbols. In the third place, you haven't said what Unger may have said about Blissymbolics in that book. And finally, as an expert on writing systems who does know Blissymbols, I am confident that it is, in fact, an ideographic writing system. I'm revising the section for clarity. Let's discuss this here before further editing. Evertype 09:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Language codes
Bliss has an ISO 639-2 language code now. Eventually the same code will be adopted in ISO 639-3. -- Evertype·✆ 09:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
