Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Schuyler <conlang-l@...>
Date:Wednesday, September 28, 2005, 5:54
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, David Fernandez-Nieto wrote:

> > hi all, > > how to get a graphical language, independen of oral languages?
I've been skeptical (but hopeful) for a long time that a graphical language can communicate effectively while still harnessed to a way to pronounce it, and I'm personally starting to become convinced. You might find a recent experiment of mine in native vs. creole-English worth a look:
> 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?'
I whole-heartedly agree. A communication system should be judged first and foremost on how well it aides communication.
> 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 will offer a couple counter examples: 1. The silent movie: the breaks from the action to a short couple of sentences or a quote very much play into silent-movie drama and cinematic effect. 2. Subtitles: perhaps many of us do not like them, but I bring this up, because we might consider that words' places in a new graphical system is to help us bridge to a new language altogether--one where we eventually may no longer need subtitles. cheers, sky
> 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 speaking. > 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 person. > 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? > yours. daf > > > --------------------------------- > > Correo Yahoo! > Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí >