Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)

... oh, and I'd also disagree with the assumption that all symbols
need be all the same size, too. :-P

In fact, I think it'd be a terrible idea.

 - Sai

On 1/31/06, Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:
> Yikes. So this is what happens when I don't pay attention for a couple days.
>
> I'll come back & respond later, but in short - IMO Jefferson had
> possibly interesting ideas (and I have no objection at all to theory
> discussions, mathematical in origin or not), but I think basically
> misunderstood what I was trying to do.
>
> He may well have been right for systems where all symbols are
> structurally identical and arranged in a grid or equivalent fashion
> (something more within the usual domain of 'space-filling' as he
> described it), but that's not something you can or should assume for
> language. After all, symbols can be directional, can have 'nodes' to
> which other symbols connect (and would prevent false connections
> between peripheral symbols, since they're not mutually compatible),
> and can have long-range connection by various means.
>
> Over-constraining the problem is excellent for math, but leads to a
> bit of 'possibility blindness' for other systems. :-/
>
> I think it would be useful to point to (what I think is his) Glyphica
> Arcana as an example of the sort of system he was probably envisioning
> - one related to but differing in some fundamental ways from what I am
> trying to get at. Not that I have anything against it of course - as
> I've said multiple times, I claim no dominion over the idea of
> nonlinear writing - just that IMO *this* particular thread is about
> /my/ version of it. If that assumption isn't being shared, then I
> think we have a setup for some major misunderstandings.
>
>  - Sai
>