> I don't like the idea of connecting lines --There's always somebody
> who comes and says "lines are linear". ;-)-- but I also don't think
> we have much option to stack elements while reducing the wasted space
After downloading the HTML, the lines which were applied excluded a couple
of paths which worked for me as well as the ones included.
> Should one wish a phonetic sub-orthography in such a system, it might
> be better served by something more akin to Alexander Bell's "Visible
> Speech" or the "Earth Language Phonetic System." It should be possible
> to have a system whereby the elements of the phonetic sub-orthography
> combine to 'automatically' form the logogram - sort of like the way
> Korean combines phonemic elements to form quasi-syllabograms.
You know Bell's Visible Speech? I have an original copy of the book which I
picked up decades ago for $.25 in the back of a junk store.
> How would it be different from other logograms?
> After all most names do have a meaning, even if
> we have forgotten them. The ancients as a rule
> hadn't.
Perhaps. I'd be A-common-spirit He-adds He-dwells-by-the-river. Call me
He-adds. :-)
> >>Why should one's name by phonetic?
>
> Maybe just to be able to say "[Insert name here] did this or that"?
Exactly. While I find it interesting for recording thoughts, I don't
perceive pure static ideograms as being superior to words for communication.
I know someone(s) suggested using ideograms for atoms which could them be
combined (in a manner that supports deconstruction?), but I remain undecided
whether an ideogram for "cat" is better than the word since I don't read the
letters but the word as a whole. I guess that my deepest interest focuses on
the multi-D associations of ideas rather than how those ideas are conveyed.
> I just wish I had kept my mouth shut. Any way, I was talking about
> Egyptian cartouches because Sai suggested to fuse the words of my
> semagrams into a single 2D glyph. When I thought about proper names, I
> thought immediately about a rather phonetic way to write them, like an
> Egyptian cartouche, for example. I didn't say "for example" and the
> whole thread went nuts about Ancient Egypt and Pharaohs.
Don't feel badly. It seems quite common here to pick out some example and
argue against it to the exclusion of the original question/statement to
which the example was attached. Wouldn't have mattered if you had said "for
example".
> I've always believed that a language influences your thought. Another
> writing system, in particular if it's as special as a 2dWS would be
> much like an another language. Sapir-Whorf and so on...
You're not alone, here or in the real world. To me, language is an organic
system: for me thought affects language, and language, thought. My
experiences with the changes in my own thought patterns after studying
Turkish and Japanese are my own personal proofs.
____________________________________
One should respect public opinion in so
far as is necessary to avoid starvation
and to keep out of prison, but anything
beyond this is voluntary submission to
an unnecessary tyranny.
-- Bertrand Russell