Re: Language comparison

> There is more to language than what is made explicit through words. [...]
Sure. But note example of ASL-influenced "nonverbal communication": I
think it would be hard to argue that the added, explicitly linguistic,
content doesn't enrich the communication overall.

Admitting that, though, would by extension admit the larger idea.

> This could account for why many people underestimate or dismiss them as being unimportant.
I am not among them. However, I would say that they are sub-optimal
when it comes to conveying meaning (even that which is often
considered "extra-linguistic", like emotional content). E.g., the ASL
example.

> Maybe not in a sense that most Westerners are familiar with, but it
> exists nonetheless.
I'm curious what you're referring to here. The various readings each
character has, or some actual phonetic-alphabet usage? (I don't
remember any such thing from my study of Mandarin; we used Pinyin for
phonetic descriptions.)

> And anyway, Chinese still represents what is being
> spoken, even if it's not through a mainly phonetic means, therefore it is
> real writing.
"Represents what is being spoken", then, seems to only mean that there
is a way to express the same thing in speech. If I were to, say,
create a speech code for expressing a fully 2d writing system, would
it then "represent what is being spoken" and qualify as a "real"
language system?

"Not worth the effort"... reminds me of this other essay -
http://paulgraham.com/say.html .

- Sai