>>68I haven't seen that movie.
>>69Well, what I should have said is that languages are spoken by default, and written language is just a special encoding of spoken language. Just to illustrate, there's no such thing as a person who hears a sentence and has to mentally translate it into writing to even begin to understand it, but if you're learning to read you do it the other way around (translating writing to speech). The point being, any time you talk about a "written language," you're really discussing the
spoken language, since the particular method you use to encode it is pretty much arbitrary. You can write Japanese in the Roman alphabet, and English in Arabic, and so on. But doing so doesn't translate the Japanese words into English or the English words into Arabic.
And even if I took your comment to be about the Korean alphabet, that would be just as meaningless as
>>45,50,52's awful nonsense, because your other examples were just the Roman alphabet adapted to new languages, as opposed to a new alphabet invented for an existing language.