Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Jefferson Wilson <jeffwilson63@...>
Date:Sunday, January 29, 2006, 20:56
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:52:29 -0500, Jefferson Wilson > <jeffwilson63@...> wrote: > >>>> 1 2 3 >>>> \|/ >>>> 4-O-5 >>>> /|\ >>>> 6 7 8 >> >> This shows a system made up of paired (2) connections. "\" (link) >> connects to "1" and "O." "O" only has one connection, to link. Also >> in this scheme "2" cannot immediately link to "5" since it becomes >> indeterminate whether that also links "2" to "3" or "O." > > Again, you're thinking in complicated and obfuscated mathematical > jargon.
No I'm thinking about what is needed to convey information. If you have another definition, feel free to define it. If you don't provide a definition then there's no way I can use it or understand what you're getting at.
> Look at it as a purely graphical device. Forget the specialized > technical meanings you have learned for words like "connection" and > "link" and think of it as you might if you were an ordinary, average > schoolchild, learning to write using that system. O is > (non-technically) connected to eight other objects, by means of the > eight lines which each lead to one of them.
So what? This is a discussion about the theory _behind_ "arbitrary degree of connection." Supply your definition or theory, and I'll use it (to the extent it makes sense). Until you do I _have_ to use the definition that I'm familiar with. An average schoolchild doesn't see any need to include a "'" in "won't" or, indeed, to use any punctuation whatsoever. Does that mean the average schoolchild is correct in so doing?
> Most people do not conlang based on the axioms of information theory. I > don't see why we should be con-scripting based on the axioms of map > theory.
We AREN'T con-scripting. We're THEORIZING ABOUT conscripting. If you can't see how map theory applies to conscripting theory I pity you. If you want to talk about con-scripting, feel free to address my Glyphica Arcana ( and explain why I shouldn't have restricted connections per glyph to six, or how further connections could be added without adding to interpretation time, or anything else you please. Until you bring in a real example though, we're talking THEORY not PRACTICE!
> If you're a loglanger, or potentially some other kind of > engelanger, they're admirable goals to be sure, but for the rank and > file they're somewhat lofty and obscure, and IMO ought to remain so, > lest our craft become nothing more than a science.
From your response, I've done my part. I've explained my what I mean. You have totally failed to explain what _you_ mean. -- Jefferson


Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>