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

On Thu, 5 May 2005 15:53:54 +0100, Joe <joe@...> wrote:

>J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 5 May 2005 02:15:27 -0700, Sai Emrys <saizai@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Human languages are essentially linear (they are sequences of "words").
Ergo,
>>>>writing sytems for human languages are essentially linear as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Your argument is circular here, if you intend it as one of 'purpose'.
>>>Certainly, I would agree that a writing system *intended* to 'fix
>>>language' as you call it - and I presume that you make the common
>>>equation that "real language" = "speech" - would need to be linear.
>>>That's obvious.
>>>
>>>But I would strongly disagree that a writing system *need* do so at
>>>all, and cannot exist entirely separate of a spoken language.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You can do that, but it's rather unusual. Most would consider e.g. maths or
>>formal logics a notational system, but not a writing system. Writing systems
>>are usually considered the subgroup of notational systems that represent
>>languages.
>>
>>
>
>You're rather limiting the use of 'language', there.  I'd suggest that
>language can be independent of speech - it's anything that can
>theoretically convey any meaning, given appropriate vocabulary.
"Human language", then?

Reply