> --- Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:
>
> > Tom -
> >
> > > I thought Jeff W's G.A. was a good approximation
> > to a foundation for an
> > > example of what you were looking for.
> > >
> > > I didn't think by any means all examples of what
> > you were looking for
> > > needed to resemble Jeff's much at all, but I
> > thought his is the best-
> > > worked example that's available on the Web.
> > >
> > > If, in fact, his G.A. is something "fundamentally
> > different" than what
> > > you were looking for, I must have misunderstood
> > what you were looking
> > > for.
> > >
> > > Could you explain, better, what you are looking
> > for, so I won't make a
> > > similar mistake again?
> >
> > Sure; I'll try to describe it as a diff, since GA
> > does have some
> > substantially similar features.
> >
> > (Also clause this by saying that while I've read
> > over the GA page and
> > think I understand how it works, I may have
> > misunderstood it.)
> >
> > First, GA is grid-based. In that sense, it is indeed
> > "two-dimensional"
> > - literally. It works as an array. My conception of
> > 2d is not as an
> > array, but freeform; something much more like
> > Ouwiyaru in that sense.
> > (Actually, Ouwiyaru I think is the closest example
> > I've seen to what
> > I'd like.)
>
> Ouwiyaru is hard to find.
> I found it at
>
http://www.graffitiweb.org/ouwiyaru/writing.html
>
> > Because of this, GA drastically limits its
> > connectivity. It only
> > allows immediate local connections - not the
> > (nearly) any-to-any
> > connectiveness that I would want.*
>
> Ah. I think I see.
>
> In my post
> "
> Message number 131804
> From: tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...>
> Date: Sat Jun 4, 2005 3:49 am
> Subject: Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?
> From tomhchappell@... Fri Jun 03 21:34:47 2005
> Message-ID: <d7r8c5+6062@...>
> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 03:49:25 -0000
> Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
> To: CONLANG@...
> In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.63.0505310936190.14940@acer>
> "
> I mentioned that subordinate clauses might have
> long-distance co-references or long-distance
> dependencies; graphically showing this in a NLF2DWS
> might introduce loops.
>
> The same might also be true of a two-clause sentence
> with an cataphor in the first clause co-refering to a
> noun in the second clause, while an anaphor in the
> second clause co-refers to a noun in the first clause.
> This type of sentence has a name; but it escapes my
> mind, as do the best examples. Here is an example
> I've made up;
>
> If that man knows her, he loves Katy.
>
> > Second, there do not seem to be significant
> > differences (other than
> > the connectives) between the 'symbols' in GA. By
> > symbol here, I mean
> > the ones that are usable as characters - not the
> > funadmental parts,
> > which I'd think of more like 'radicals' in
> > Chinese/Japanese (and which
> > in those are indeed psuedo-2d, within their
> > characters). This seems a
> > suboptimal design; I would like the very shape of
> > characters to play a
> > *major* role in its visual and grammatical
> > structure, and indeed in
> > how it can connect.
>
> But, how crucial should this point be? Is it really
> fair to rule out systems such as Jeff W's Glyphica
> Arcana just because they don't live up to this second
> point as much as you'd like? I think this is a point
> I would call "aesthetic", as you called the
> lines-mustn't-cross restriction I had referred to when
> talking about flow-charting.
>
> > This point bears a little elaboration. In linear
> > writing, the actual
> > content of symbols is more or less irrelevant; they
> > can be whatever
> > shape you like, since all you care about is that
> > they are symbol
> > #12345 then symbol #12347 then etc. (Imagining that
> > each was
> > serialized, as is in fact done with hanzi/kanji.)
> > Their internal form
> > has nothing to do with anything. And, aside from
> > some small
> > exceptions, they are all moreorless the same size
> > (or treated as if
> > they were).
> >
> > In a 2d system, that would be a *huge* waste.
> > Symbols or meta-symbols
> > that have low content should also be small and
> > simple - e.g. a
> > pluralization 'morpheme' or a causal-connection one.
>
> Ouwiyaru's symbols actually represent phonemes, or
> perhaps syllables, AFAICT. Maybe some represent
> fundamental, frequent function-particles; I haven't
> read it well enough.
>
> > And I'd like that
> > symbols that are meant to connect to each other in
> > particular ways
> > show that.
>
> Ouwiyaru doesn't satisfy that desideratum.
>
> >
> > As a really really really simplified example:
> >
> > X-( *-Y
> >
> > Pretend that X-( is one character (the rightside is
> > an actual chunk of
> > it as written) and *-Y is also. (I just got out of a
> > neuroscience
> > class, so this may be a bit familiar in origin to
> > some of you...)
> >
> > The two connect naturally. Putting two X-figures
> > together (or Ys)
> > simply wouldn't result in a connection, because they
> > don't mate
> > appropriately.
> >
> > That's a non-overlapping example. Ouwiyaru has what
> > I think are some
> > pretty neat examples of overlapping connections -
> > not as extensive as
> > I'd like, but definitely of the kind that I'm
> > talking about.
>
> I didn't catch that on any of my (admittedly
> non-numerous) readings of Ouwiyaru, yet. Would you
> mind giving me an example?
>
> > Also, that's an example that has no semantics in it,
> > which is an
> > excessive oversimplification. I would like to see
> > the subcomponents,
> > the very graphical form, be semantic and otherwise
> > functional.
> >
> > My 'sketch' paper -
> >
http://saizai.livejournal.com/590734.html - is a
> > pre-alpha version of what I mean in this respect -
> > see figures 1-8,
> > the 'commercial transaction' frame -
> >
http://pics.livejournal.com/saizai/pic/0007y17b/g14.
> > Note how the form
> > indexes the semantic, even in its subparts [like the
> > 'goods' node
> > travelling within the character to indicate
> > ownership]. It would be
> > better if the *form* was also somewhat ideographic -
> > i.e. looked
> > vaguely like what it is intended to represent - but
> > its *function* is
> > what I'm referring to here. (See the text of the
> > paper for an
> > explanation, since the diagrams aren't completely
> > self-explaining.)
>
> No, I'm sorry, I don't get it.
>
> To me, both your sketch and Ouwiyaru suffer from the
> same deficiency that Carsten and I have complained
> about to Jefferson Wilson concerning Glyphica Arcana.
> Namely:
> 1) There is no explicit way to tell what the semantics
> are of a given way of assembling the elements, nor of
> the semantics of the elements within given
> assemblages.
> 2) There is no explicit way to tell how, given a
> certain semantic notion-or-idea-or-concept, to choose
> which elements to assemble, nor how to connect them,
> to express that concept.
>
> > There are some other points I could add, but I think
> > those two are the
> > major ones that come to mind.
> >
> > > Jeff's _Glyphs_ are not all the same size nor all
> > the same shape.
> > >
> > > The "_symbols_" out of which the glyphs are
> > constructed are all the
> > > same size and all the same shape.
> >
> > See above for what I intended by 'symbol'. You I
> > think are talking of
> > what I called 'radicals'
>
> Yes, the things Jeff uses for elementary symbols could
> be similar somewhat in use to "radicals" and
> "determiners".
>
> What I had in mind to compare them with were the
> "jamo" in Hangul.
> I think they are comparable to the things out of which
> the "jamo" are constructed. A glyph is comparable to
> a "syllabic block" in Hangul.
>
> But since neither the symbols nor the markers have
> phonological nor phonetic values specified by Jeff,
> and the symbols also have no semantic values specified
> by Jeff, they do _not_ have _precisely_ the functions
> that radicals and determiners have in Chinese and
> Akkadian and so on, nor for that matter that jamo or
> the marks out of which jamo are composed in Korean.
>
> > - they aren't accessible to
> > the larger
> > (between-'word') syntax, so they're not very
> > relevant to it.
>
> True enough, I suppose; except, perhaps, when (if?) he
> gets around to it, agreement and concordance and
> cross-referencing and flagging and indexing.
>
> > > His symbols symbolize something like "distinctive
> > features". His
> > > glyphs symbolize something like compound-complex
> > words and/or simple-
> > > to-medium phrases.
> >
> > *nod* Though 'simple' seems to have a really low bar
> > (viz. the symbol
> > representing God, or Explore, or etc - while these
> > do in fact
> > represent very complex meanings, I think it a major
> > mistake from what
> > I know of category representation, frames, etc., to
> > try to 'write out'
> > these meaning rather than merely point to them.
>
> Well, at least, it looks like you could tell what I
> meant.
> I think I see what you meant, too, though I don't
> think I see why you said it. Not that I necessarily
> disagree; I just don't know what convinced you, nor
> why I should agree.
>
> > (I'd point out though that the latter is IMO a
> > separate question, not
> > necessarily related to 2d writing itself. An
> > interesting one, though.)
> >
> > > He hadn't, the last time I looked, explained how
> > to derive the
> > > meaning of a glyph from the meanings of the
> > "elementary symbols" of
> > > which it was constructed, and their relationships;
> > nor, given an idea
> > > or concept, how to construct the "glyph" to
> > represent it. (No
> > > obvious connection, in other words, between a
> > glyph's visual
> > > structure and its semantics.) That's why I
> > thought his G.A. was a
> > > good _foundation_ for the sort of NLF2DWS you were
> > looking for, as
> > > opposed to being a full-fledged _example_ of such.
> > It's still IME
> > > the best-worked-out example available on the web;
> > if you know of a
> > > better one, or even one almost as good, please let
> > me know how to
> > > look at it.
> >
> > I think he was using the same 'derivation' rules as
> > e.g. Leibniz -
> > kludged ones. This is another supporting point for
> > my statement above
> > - like it or not, he's indexing something he's not
> > really writing out.
> > Symbols are arbitrary; I think (but am not certain)
> > that this is an
> > inevitability. Having them be *translucent*
>
> A no-longer-really-a-joke term meaning "Not quite
> transparent, but also not opaque"?
>
> > - that
> > is, have some
> > morphemic or sublexemic in any case regularities
> > that make them more
> > memorable or guessable or whatnot is a Very Good
> > Thing. But trying to
> > have them as a general rule be *derivable* is, in
> > all attempts I have
> > seen, a complete failure.
> >
> > But hey, perhaps he can do it better. More power to
> > him if so. :-)
> >
> > May I suggest that you forward this thread back onto
> > list and respond there?
> >
> > - Sai
> >
>
> I'll forward my response to your response, without
> snipping anything out of your response. Do you want
> me to forward my original message to you, as well?
>
> Tom H.C. in MI
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>
http://mail.yahoo.com
>