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

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
(http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/BabelTarot.html) 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
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/

Reply