Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?

From:# 1 <salut_vous_autre@...>
Date:Saturday, May 7, 2005, 6:20
Sai Emrys wrote:

> > I suppose however, that for a language to be visual only, your lexicon >would > > have to be ideographic as someone else said. I'm thinking you'd have to > > create symbols for each function word, root, etc. A simple method would >be > > to do affixing or maybe create something isolating instead (because > > obviously you couldn't do anything sound based (duh). You could also >create > > semantically related words by altering the form of a base word/root. > >Mm. Ideographic I think would be limiting, but obviously whatever it >is, it would need to encode purely meaning. (I don't know of any >ideographic writing systems that do so; all the ones I know have at >least some phonetics in them, like Chinese.) > >However, "affixing" and similar concepts I think become meaningless - >or at least, they would change significantly if nonlinearized. (After >all, "suffix" only is a useful concept in a linear system [*cough* >like speech *cough*]...) >
You could make affixation in a 2d writing but in more directions and in more manners Instead of prefixes,suffixes, infixes, circumfixes, you'd have upfixes, underfixes, rightfixes, leftfixes, upleftfixes, middlefixes, right-middlefixes, circumfixes, up-hemicircumfixes, right-hemicircumfixes, far-rightfixes, near-circumfixes... OK to distinct right-left or up-down, it needs a directionnal indication but if not you still have the various angles an affix might take and its distance from the "root"


Simon Clarkstone <simon.clarkstone@...>
Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>