Talk:Writing system

Examples of writing systems

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 —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.

SignWriting as first language

@Slevinski firstly, I'd like to show appreciation for your work related to SignWriting. It's an important movement. Regarding the changes, I wanted to discuss a bit more: my concerns have to do with citing the symposium directly, as opposed to a peer reviewed survey, and ultimately keeping all our claims verifiable in the sources, and not falling into WP:SYNTH. I don't speak Portuguese, but I am not sure we can base such broad changes in meaning entirely based on the symposium and the sources it cites, which includes several masters theses (we generally don't consider those reliable) and seemingly self-published sources (e.g. Barreto & Barreto, Escrita de Sinais sem mistérios). I don't think we can really write it was historically assumed that all written languages were predicated on an existing spoken language based on the sources cited as such. I think it might be appropriate to attribute the new research instead of stating it in wikivoice, but I'm still not sure what we should be citing. Remsense ‥ 论 20:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the great edits about writing and sign language. I appreciate that Wikipedia needs sources. I only have a story I believe to be true. It can be verified in part by reliable sources and published research in academia, but I'm probably reading a bit too much between the lines. For Sutton SignWriting, the script is spreading through generations from country to country. There is a growing set of people who learned Sutton SignWriting as their first written language as children who are now getting Masters and PHDs in linguistics using Sutton SignWriting. They are writing children's books, they are teaching the next generation, and they are helping communities in other countries. Their brains have been trained for literacy in sign language without the need for any concept about spoken language, uttered or written. The same language centers of the brain are wired for language in similar ways, but reading sign language engages the visual centers of the brain in addition to the language centers of the brain. While I wish the diagram text about Beatrice Primus's model would say the theory is incomplete or wrong, the other edits you made were excellent, so thank you. Sutton SignWriting is unique because it has two levels of formality. The first involves the individual symbols of the script that make up a sign. For quick notes or long form hand writing, handwritten SignWriting can be a personal set of marks of an individual or small group. Valerie Sutton developed the ISWA 2010 as a standardized set of symbols. The formality of the marks can be determined by how closely those marks resemble the symbols of the ISWA 2010. The second level of formality is appropriately called "Formal SignWriting": a computer encoded version of the text using the symbols of the ISWA 2010 in 2-dimensional space. There is an ASCII version of this encoding, and an experimental version of Unicode which differs from the official Unicode version 8 of SignWriting. Sign language as text is important for expanding work with artificial intelligence and machine learning. The ASCII encoding is appropriate for processing, but the experimental Unicode encoding is useful for visual presentation of a one-dimensional string of characters. -Slevinski (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

recent edits

Because I cut myself off:

• unnecessary ordered lists
• bizarre list mangling generally (WP:BADINDENTs bundled in)
• odd MOS:WAW emphases,
• idiosyncratic/undocumented use of ′′
• unneeded harmonization, when the smaller and larger images were such for a reason
• A tree structure for the typology is obfuscatory given the diversity of how sources variously classify them/insist that all systems exist on spectra.

To the degree typologies are presented as hierarchical, it's generally as sections of prose comprising a chapter first and foremost. That's important. All the comma-delineated lists in prose are legible—to the degree they're not instantly visually popping out, that's because they're not communicating stark concreteness I don't think is there. Remsense ‥ 论 00:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

independent invention

Remsense changed

The Mesoamerican writing systems, including Olmec and the Maya script, were also invented independently.

to

The Mesoamerican writing systems, including Olmec and the Maya script, are likewise associated with an independent invention.

The edit summary fx ambig is ambiguous. Was the old wording insufficiently vague? —Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The potential ambiguity I saw was one implying the various Mesoamerican cultures potentially had their own independent inventions of writing. Remsense 🌈 论 04:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of Template:Writing systems worldwide

Hi, I am a regular editor on Malay Wikipedia, and from time to time I review my previous edits on random articles there, especially the infographic elements such as templates or images. Sometimes, I would compare them with the corresponding versions on English Wikipedia.

Today, I noticed that Template:Writing systems worldwide was removed from the main page of Writing system as of revision 1261573157 of the article "Writing system". Since the template does not include any references, can I assume that the information in the template might be misleading or factually inaccurate, and therefore not worthwhile for inclusion in the article "Writing system" as well as its corresponding articles on other language editions of Wikipedia? Hakimi97 (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The funny thing is similar image(s) or tabulation were included on the list-class article List of writing systems. Therefore, I would appreciate if there is an elaborated explanation regarding the removal of the template from this article. Hakimi97 (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

An Image Is Incorrect!

This image (maybe there are two of them apparently) uses incorrect characters. The cuneiform character for axe actually ends with the character "GIŠ / GISZ" in reality this image shows completely different symbols, this could confuse or misinform readers although the image is a good graphic (in terms of the history and as a window into the history of the history of writing systems). I’ve seen a few similar graphics showing the evolution from Proto-Cuneiform through to some later forms. I don’t what to delete it, as beside these small errors—that have likely affected few—it illustrates the evolution of writing well (in broad strokes).

if anyone has an image that would be more accurate that would be great.

to summarise it: the image is perfect in its form but has factual errors that make it unsuitable for Wikipedia.

Legendarycool (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the notification about this! There's no issue in editing this graphic given I vectorized it. Do you have a preferred citation to a dictionary/other RS for this? Remsense 🌈 论 14:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long, here are the sources I put forward, I hope these are reliable enough:

Showing evidence for the error:

baseline evidence, the last sign for Mesopotamia under “ax” is the sign gisz/ ŋiš / giš see: http://oracc.org/osl/signlist/o0000217 (Unicode form) and https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/osl/OraccCuneiformFonts/ofs-nni/index.html (neo-assyrian form) and https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/osl/OraccCuneiformFonts/ofs-pc/index.html (proto-cuneiform form) and https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/osl/OraccCuneiformFonts/ofs-lak/index.html (early form of cuneiform ediiia period)

these show the forms of the word for wood.

https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/osl/signlist/l0068/o0000160/index.htmlthe sign for ax(e) is dun3 in the neo-Assyrian font it shows a sign that isn’t the same as the one given for the ax column.

Would the above evidence also function as a reliable source for an image?

If you intend to replace the column with accurate characters I would recommend citing the Unicode document (not proposal) for the bottom, also the fish need to be turned 90° left ( 𒄩 ) (use the Unicode document as the citation as well) bird might be fine? The Unicode (noto sans) font show 𒄷 but I can’t say the existing one is incorrect. And arrow should be 𒋾 and I think the character (if I’m recognised it is and early form of Mu 𒈬)

I apologise for the rough formatting. Also I’m sure there are other mistakes/errors in it as the page on wikimedia says it’s from a book made in the 1870s…

to summarise these ramblings: OSL and Unicode would be preferred citations, along with ePSD2 for citing word definitions if necessary, as I am not familiar with the rules for Wikimedia and sourcing of images I do not know. The characters in the bottom rows (Mesopotamia) are all likely incorrect in some form from left to right: turn 90° left, maybe change to resemble 𒄷 more, change to dun3 instead of Giš (Unicode, as the lowest row looks like it isn’t neoassyrian but more resembling Unicode’s form), arrow should be the sign ti (𒋾) and the 2nd sign resembles Mu (𒈬) (when written in stone in the ed period) and the bottle I cannot say anything concrete about it as I have not yet found what sign it even is (as I cannot find evidence for or against it should be kept???)

P.S. I wish to thank you for your hard work, I have seen you on many pages, with important contributions; I appreciate the effort you have put in.

Legendarycool (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

External link

Will the following link be accepted: Writing Systems of the World | Abjads, Alphabets, Abugidas, Syllabaries & Logosyllabaries? תיל"ם (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Modes of language diagram

@Newydd from what I understand, Meletis & Dürscheid credit Primus directly for the modeling depicted. I don't read German though. Remsense 🌈 论 14:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Restore Right-to-left script

The article Right-to-left script was merged into this article about a year ago. The discussion about it took place at Talk:Writing direction.

The version before merging was quite long, informative, and useful. Some of the information that was there got lost in the merge. That article should be restored. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)