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

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:

http://www.livejournal.com/community/conlangs/258572.html

>  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
> http://correo.yahoo.es