Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?
|From:||David Fernandez-Nieto <yulerippo@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, September 20, 2005, 10:10|
how to get a graphical language, independen of oral languages?
i was reading the previous stuff about "non-linear / full-2d writing systems?".
my thought is:
1. no matter how to translate it into an oral language. 'can you understand it?'
should not be equal to 'can you express it through words?'
2. an oral and written language can be a part of it
for instance, a TV programme is not a novel. the TV language is different than a
series of words, though the TV language can content a lot of words.
can you imagine a movie like this?:
the camera films the first page of a book, maybe an illustrated one. when a
minute has passed, a page is turned and you can read the page number two. and
so on, until you have finished the novel.
is that an example of entire TV/cinema language?
i think that holliwood or bombay are good alternatives, to that example.
what is the problem with the movie in the example?. the camera tries to
imitate the archi-known reading experience, but it does not explore the new
possibilities of been a camera of cinema or TV instead of a page of a book.
something like that occurs with the written language: the inked paper is badly
and boringly imitating the voice in a conversation, but the full communicative
possibilities of the inked paper are very other.
in fact, the voice has some unwritable features that are important in
communication. all of them are lost in writen language. and the body that
produces the voice, its attitudes and moves are more important than the half of
voice communication. all of that is lost, ignored. writing is a bad imitator of
a good understander have to imagine the complete scene: the speaker and eys
body, eys psichology, the tiny traces of eys true intentions and whys. a good
understander by reading is similar to a graphologist and an archeologist in one
so our methaphorical movie is badly imitating a bad imitator. yet worse!
the oral language is rich because it is a little part in a live communicative
jungle. the written language is poorer, because it imitates only a part of the
oral language and the communicative jungle disappeares. the big heavy duty
falls on the reader's imagination and inteligence. written language is too
simple to be human, or to be easily understable. out of context!.
the result of this: you need to live a huge lot of not written experiences
previously to understand the written worlds. if you try to understand the
written worlds directly or try to understand the real world through the written
worlds, you can end out worse than 'don Quijote de la Mancha'.
but, what about our loved graphical language?
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí