Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?
|From:||Sai Emrys <saizai@...>|
|Date:||Friday, May 6, 2005, 4:40|
> If you can paste a past prefix "k-", the indicative infix "-kc-", the 1st
> person's suffix for the subject "-tb", and the 2nd person's suffix for the
> object "-dww" to the root for "to love" "-gg-hp-".
But that would be utterly silly. Why use a symbol system whose only
redeeming feature is portraying phonetic representation (or some
bastardized version thereof) if it's not relevant to you?
It seems obvious to me that a visual-only language would be
ideographic at minimum, and most likely in a rather complex way - you
would need a visual morphology, for one, and a better syntax than one
that is constrained to linearity by a need to replicate / follow