Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: First cut... More than linear...

From:Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Thursday, May 19, 2005, 18:05
On Thursday, May 19, 2005, at 03:29 , Remi Villatel wrote:

> Just to fuel our 2D discussion:
I guess Remi will expect a response from - so I'll not disappoint him :)
> > > For the fun, I worked on something everybody should recognize which I > "translated"
So I noticed. My first reaction when I saw it was that it reminded me straightaway of the 'box analysis' of English that we used to do in school 50 years ago, except it used pretty colors :) BTW why the quotes?
> in an evolved version of the first exemple of 2D writing I > made. (This time, the stupid mailers shouldn't destroy my beautiful work. > ) ;-)
I know - annoying of some us using mailers for email ;)
> Some explanations: Green means container (node) and red means content > (branch/leaf).
Yep - when I looked more closely I saw it was not, of course, box analysis. It is a tree.
> (Blue is always abviously contained.) Any way, everything should be quite > clear.
Colors make it look pretty - but if they are an essential part of the representation, I have to asked how those afflicted with color-blindness are suppose to cope. Partial color-blindness affecting green and/or red is, I believe, not uncommon among males. It seems to me, however, that colors are not really needed. You just need a different shape for the red, green and blue borders/frames/cartouches.
> I won't call it 2D right now
Well it printed out in two dimensions :) Why is it not 2D? Whether it is _fully_ 2D is another matter, however.
> but at least I think it's more than linear.
Let me just quote Sai, who: - on Friday, May 6, 2005, at 02:24 wrote: "Hardly, as they're all equivalent at an extremely basic level (viz. CS proofs of tree - array convertability)." and - on Monday, May 9, 2005, at 11:36 wrote: "If it's a tree, then it's trivially serializable." Yes, a tree is, I guess, 'more than linear' in concept. But it is a relatively trivial task to linearize it, including equivalents for your colors. One of the things I was expected to show when I taught CS was how a binary tree could be implemented in the linear structure called an array. (Not my preferred way of implementing a tree).
> It's a "flat" version of my fractal writing. It's not space saving,
No, it is not. If you want to save space you either write Article 1 of the Univesal Declaration of Human Rights in shorthand (either 'geometric' like Gregg & Pitman, or alphabetic like Speedwriting & T-line) or translate into a conlang briefscript like Speedwords, Babm or Lin. I would like to be able to add Piashi (~bax) to the latter list - but I still haven't got to grips with the vocab :=(
> it isn't worth the trouble but I kinda like it.
I agree with you about its not being worth the trouble. This time I will quote myself, as: - on Friday, May 13, 2005, at 06:45 I wrote: "I don't see what advantage 2d has for recording (linear) speech - it may be novel, intriguing, aesthetically pleasing etc - but advantageous?" and - On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 07:43 I wrote: {quote} As I see it a 2d writing system could be developed to represent some spoken language (whether actually spoken or a conlang that could be spoken) .......... but, apart from novelty and possibly aesthetic value - I do not see what significant advantage this has over other writing systems, therefore I do not find it very interesting. But that does *NOT* mean that I think it is wrong, or think it is a heresy or any other such nonsense. ......But for me, 2d writing only gets interesting if it adds something which cannot be done (adequately) in current (or past) writing systems. {unquote} Indeed, your version seems to _subtract_ from the origin. Certainly it adds an ambiguity which is not there in the original. The original marks it clear that _all_ human beings are are born free and equal etc. As far as I can see there is nothing in your diagram to indicate that the big red container at the bottom applies universally. The two blue contained elements {reason} and {conscience} could be construed as defining the set of human beings who have equality & freedom by birth, i.e. "those human beings, who are endowed with reason and conscience, are born free & equal...." - but others aren't. That leaves it open to totalitarian regimes to decide which human beings lack either reason or conscience (or both) and thus decide who are not born free & equal - and obviously anyone disagreeing with the regime must at least lack reason! The notion of 'endowment' is surely missing from your version. Why is 'reason' & 'conscience' 'by endowment', not treated in the same sort of way as 'equality' & 'freedom' 'by birth'. I don't understand. Also I do understand why the container 'behavior' branches off from the the root node and not from the 'human being' node. Surely the behavior applies to human being? I know we will not agree, but according to Plato, the dialectic process between us two should lead us closer to a true understanding :)
> Besides, all I can say is that pen and paper should be avoided in 2D --it' > s > pure masochism!-- and some powerful 2D-text editor has to be invented!
Isn't that going to restrict the usefulness of any NLF2DWS?
> I spent more hours than I can count on this tiny stuff... <grin>
That's because you insisted on its being neat, tidy and pretty :) I found that with blue, red, green & black inks (my pen allows me change easily between these four colors) I produced a tolerable version fairly quickly <grin> Ray =============================================== =============================================== "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760


Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>Pens (was Re: First cut... More than linear...)