Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?
|From:||# 1 <salut_vous_autre@...>|
|Date:||Friday, May 6, 2005, 3:16|
Tim May wrote:
>J. 'Mach' Wust wrote at 2005-05-05 19:13:37 (-0400)
> > On Thu, 5 May 2005 13:25:37 -0700, Sai Emrys <saizai@...> wrote:
> > >merely because it hasn't been done before in a natural
> > >language. If you can argue that there is something to the *idea*
> > >that is impractical, impossible, or unsuited to human cognition,
> > >that would be an interesting argument. But your argument is
> > >essentially that it is not a code as [nearly] all other writing
> > >systems are... and that's a chiken-and-egg.
> > It's a question of how the terms are defined. With my linguistical
> > background, I'm used to think of language as primary communication
> > system of humans that can be observed either as speech (spoken
> > language) or as writing (written language).
>I think what's being overlooked in this discussion is sign language,
>which is accepted as language by most linguists despite having nothing
>to do with speech. By analogy, it's at least possible to imagine an
>exclusively written language.
Yeah, it would be simpler!
Not having to care about the pronounciability of your words would be SO easy
, you don't even have to create a phonology
But don't you think it remove all the challenge you got when creating
something that ought to have a way to be said
If you can paste a past prefix "k-", the indicative infix "-kc-", the 1st
person's suffix for the subject "-tb", and the 2nd person's suffix for the
object "-dww" to the root for "to love" "-gg-hp-".
Everybody who've read the last paragraph understands that "kggkchptbdww"
means "I love you", but what an odd phonology you'd have to use to find an
easy way to say that..
I once tought (but no much more) of a binar language (and think I talked
about it on the list), for which I didn't tought of pronounciability, it
would certainly work, why wouln't it? I still find that idea interesting.