Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
Date:Wednesday, May 11, 2005, 22:14
On 5/11/05, Remi Villatel <maxilys@...> wrote:
> Sai Emrys wrote: > > >> So here came my idea. Whenever a non-linear writing system should be > >> invented, why should it absolutely reproduces all the flaws of the linear > >> system? Our visual cortex is capable of deciphering more that a word at a time. > [---CUT---] > > > *nodnod* I wonder how you could take advantage of psych / cogsci / > > perception research to optimize for this... > > > > Ideas? > > I was thinking about real pictures but even if a picture is better than 1000 > words, some words are also better 1000 pictures. "Freedom", "Thoughts", > "Conlang" are the first 3 examples that come to my mind. > > Logograms/Ideograms could be really good but also very hermetic. And it > makes you feel like an Egyptian when it comes to proper names... Unless you > create a unique logogram for yourself. > > That's why I used words. I couldn't find anything better. Words are obvious. > > >> So, a semagram is no more than a few words the one above the other which can > >> be read at once, almost like a picture, as a whole. Thus, the semagrams are > >> the symbols and the words are their atomic components. We don't need more. > [---CUT---] > > > Strongly *dis*agreed. "A few words one above the other" is an > > extremely linear concept. If you're going to treat them as a whole, > > why not fuse them 2d, or even in a completely overlapping / > > integrating fashion? Why keep the bounds of the constituent atoms and > > then string those along? > > Yes and no. I said "A few words one above the other" because it's a > convenient way to write them but that's of no importance. What matters is > that these few words describe a mental image *together.* That's why I used a > framing around my semagrams; it fuses the atomic words in a whole. > > >> If you haven't room enough, you just add a third dimension thanks to a > >> hyper-semagram... well... a hyperlink just like on any HTML page. (We're > >> living in a computerized world, ain't we?) > > > Mm. I find that such things tend to be difficult for me to parse / > > chunk, though - ones that rely on hyperlinks. Tend to get lost and not > > have a sitemap, nor the ability to have a "zoomed-out" view of the > > situation. > > So do I. I was also thinking of adding a 3rd dimenstion (depth) when there > isn't enough room left in the 2D plane. I actually had another idea in mind > but I found it too hard to explain... until your semagram "zoomed-out view" > unleashed my mind. > > Instead of laying the semagrams along lines and columns, you can zoom in a > semagram to see the semagrams connected to it and the "upper level" is > spread around the zooming area so you can zoom out or zoom in another > semagram from the "upper level". > > So, a whole book is contained in a single semagram, you zoom in to access > the chapter-semagrams, in which you can zoom to acess the content-semagrams, > then details, then details related to details... and so on. Then the 2D text > looks more like a tree with nodes, branches and leaves. You always have a > general view and a detailed view where you zoom in. I think that would be > closer from our way of thinking: a general "view" i.e. the object of our > thoughts and a detailed view of what we set our "mental focus" on. > > >> BUT this is no kind of writing system that can you read aloud. You can only > >> read it for yourself then tell what you read with your own words. Speech has > >> only one dimension so any non-linear writing system can logically only have > >> an indirect relation with it. > > > Not really. Any graph or tree can be linearized; it's just a > > one-to-many relation. You'd also have to add salt in order to recover > > the broken links, but that's doable. Probably not in a cognitively > > easy way for a human, though, so you could consider that to be > > effectively lost data. > > I think that losing data is the only purpose of a 2D writing system: To lose > datas that are unncessary for the reader to understand. Our linear writing > system is so much full of superfluous data that we can get bored by a text > on a subject that however interests us. Personnaly, when I read, I spend > more time dreaming in between the lines than actually reading. I'm in a deep > need of another writing system. ;-) > > > That does beg the question, though, of how much you could screw with > > it so as to render it not just nonlinear, but *nonlinearizable*... > > *hmmmmmmmm*... > > That's absolutely impossible. We already "linearize" our everyday 4D > universe every time we speak. 2D is flatter(more flat?) than 4D... So > whatever the number of dimensions, we can reduce them to only one: speech. > > > (Your story, btw, showed in my gmail [via both Firefox and IE] as a > > formatted table, but without lines of any kind - just cells. Was that > > the intended appearance?) > > All the cells are supposed to be framed with a black square of which one or > two sides may be thicker to separate the "branches". I guess Gmail scrambles > HTML pages with inline CSS. It appears correctly as a real mail with > Mozilla-Mail and also correctly as a stand-alone page with Mozilla, > Konqueror, Firefox and Opera. Gmail is to blame. > > I'd suggest you get the page from the list archives: > > > > A++ > > -- > ================== > Remi Villatel > > ================== >


Remi Villatel <maxilys@...>