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

On Monday, May 16, 2005, at 09:02 , Sai Emrys wrote:

> Ray Brown:
>> row and columns, etc.
>
> My opinion: row&col format is *more* 2d, but not fully. I suppose I'd
> call it "linear-plus", or "double-linear" or somesuch.
Yes - linear in 2 dimensions   :)

Vertical linears & horizontal linears. Remi seemed to take exception when
I said that rows and columns are linear structures.

> 2d to me
> implies not being constrained to work in a particular direction -
> normally, this is "horizontal" (broken vertically, or vice versa,
> depending on your script orientation); row-and-col would add one more
> to that, but would still be working within a fixed path. What I see is
> something more freeform (not necessarily unregulated-freeform, though
> I can see that too) - that is, jutting out in all directions,
> progressing as a web.
Precisely - not being constrained by linear structures of rows & columns.

> I don't think any lines are linear, though; that's definitely a far
> more "zealot"-y position than I take.
Depends how one defines 'line' and 'linear'. If one looks in any
half-decent dictionary it will become apparent that "line" has a plethora
of meanings in English.

But obviously from your first paragraph above you have lined yourself up
with "zealots" according to what I understand from Remi's statement of
15th May:
{quote}
I didn't remember it was you. So, you're the "2D-zealot".  ;-)

........
I found a bit exaggerated your statement that using columns and lines as
elements in a 2dWS is linear. It marked me but I didn't remember who said
so.
{unquote}

> I would be very intrigued by
> other suggestions, but the simplest and most intuitive way to show
> connections (in the atoms-and-relations model), to me, is a line.
> Possibly a curvy / pretty line with squiggles or whanot to indicate
> different types of connection, but still a line.
As I said, it depends what one means by 'line'. I would not readily think
of a squiggle as a line - but it could be so described. A web I guess is
mdae up of 'lines' - but it is not what I understand by a linear structure.
  It is not even the "double-linear" structure of rows and columns.

I think 'line' has so many meanings that it is not merely not helpful in
this discussion, it is liable to cause confusion. Also, strictly speaking,
  'linear' is just as ambiguous. The first definition given in my
dictionary is: "of or belonging to a line"!

But by 'linear' in the context of this thread I had assumed we meant
something analogous to the concept of 'linear list' in computing, i.e. a
structure where elements are stored, accessed, processed _serially_. You
work along the line, as you do along a queue of people. OK - you can call
individuals out of the queue - they can queue-jump and so on - but you see
the concept.

> And I believe I've
> already made clear that I do agree that some linearity may be
> necessary or unavoidable, e.g. for portraying phonetics, or for giving
> a cognitively accessible description of events-over-time (as in a
> "normal" story).
Obviously of if we have to portray phonetics then some sort of linearity
is involved - but as I see it the phoneticized element is just that - an
element in the non-linear / full-2d writing system.

As for stories, we are talking about 'chunking' the story - tho how that
is best done will depend upon the story and its author.

> As Ray says, though  (and I agree) - I don't think there's anything
> *wrong* with doing it in row&col or anything else... it's just not my
> conception. Whether others want to stick to *my* conception or not is
> up to them; I am not militant about my ideas. ;-)
Quite so. There's nothing *wrong* in rows&cols or any other 2d structure.
That's why bandying about terms like 'zealot' and 'heresy' are IMO not
helpful. It surely depends upon what one is trying to achieve.

I can well accept that using (linear) rows and columns is appropriate for
some purposes. And if one wants to discuss various different approaches to
2d writing, irrespective of whether it is 'fully 2d' or 'non-linear', as I
have said several times, I have no problem with that.

>> I'm trying to talk about what Sai envisaged. Whether that is impossible
>> to
>> achieve or not, I do not know. I did express my doubts early on, but Sai'
>> s
>> enthusiasm has rubbed off on me. Unlike you, I do not have this dogmatic
>> certainty about its impossibility (or even about it's possibility). As
>> Sai
>> wrote on Thursday, May 5:
>> "But we're in the business of *creative* linguistics, are we not? I for
>> one am not interested in constraining what language can do merely because
>> it hasn't been done before in a natural language."
>
> *grin* I am quite glad that my 'vision' as you call it is catching on.
> I've had difficulties getting the concept across, as you may have
> noticed. :-P
I did   :)


> IMHO, it's a very intriguing concept, and possibly quite powerful, but
> poses some difficulty in working out a good (i.e. 2d-native [as it
> were]) way to *do* it, given how hard it is to break away from one's
> linguistic rut.
ABSOLUTELY! I may be wrong, but that seems to me probably at the heart of
the disgreement between me & Remi.

As I have understood it, Remi is talking about a system of 'semagrams'
arranged in horizontal & vertical intersecting rows and columns. Within a
particular row or column the semagrams are accessed sequentially. I am not
clear what the semagrams are. In his examples they were strings of
orthographic words. I know Remi said he was using words for demonstration
purposes only. He has been talking about logograms or ideograms, but it
has not been clear to me:
- (a) whether the constituent elements of the semagrams are logograms,
ideograms or a mix of both;
- (b) how these constituent elements are organized, whether sequentially
or in some other way.

If they are logograms, I see no real advantage over words as logograms are
simply another way of writing words. Ideograms would obviously be better,
but I am not clear how they would then form semagrams.

> Remi:
>> wormholes
>
> *grin*
>
>> fractal WS
>
> *nod* I think it's very much a related point - and one that would be
> easier to do in a NL2dWS,
I agree on both points - I think fractals are very much related, but
difficult to see how they could be implemented in a rows&cols set up.

> though might require higher tech than pen-and-paper.
Yes, I guess it would.	

[snip]
> Ray Brown again:
>> I have just come across some stuff by Roger Penrose which seems apposite
>> to the notion of *non-linear* full-2d writing systems. I thought perhaps
>> that quoting some of it might help in making clear how I understand the
>> sort of thing Sai had in mind when beginning this thread (I am quite
>> sure he will put me right if I have got it wrong   :)
>
> *grin* Indeed I would, but you seem to have pretty well grokked my
> intent. I like the quotes too. ;-)
Thanks.

> It seems to me that an inevitable question that will (and must) come
> up with this is the mapping-out of thought itself. I think it rather
> self-evident that we (or, at least, Penrose, you, and I :-P) do not
> think in words, "natively". To me it is very clear that verbalization
> is a translation process
I think so - thought precedes words. I suspect it is a common human trait.

[snip]

> "The thought that can be named is not the true thought." ;-) Or,
> equivalently, "To know a thing is to forget its name."
I like those quotes also   :)

> That is, what we refer to with language is *NOT* really a description
> of the thing we are communicating, whatever it is, save for trivial
> examples.
It's a shadow of what we want to communicate. The current (and past)
writing systems, which came long, long after speech, is are shadows of
shadows.

[snip]

> So what I would like to do is figure out how exactly we *do* think,
> natively, and to make this translation-and-symbolization process
> mangle it as little as possible. I do not believe it possible for it
> to *not* be mangled save for telepathy and even then...),
Indeed - current writing mangles speech, to a lesser or greater degree -
so we cannot suppose even the purest 'noesiography' will not in some way
mangle thought.

But altho ideally it would be helpful to know exactly how we think, it do
not think our lack of knowledge necessarily prevents our making some
tentative steps towards a NLF2DWS noesiography. After all, some 5
millennia ago the Sumerians made a start on the process of committing
spoken language to writing without any proper understanding of phonology
    :)

[snip]
> All of that make any sense? Should we start a spinoff thread about
> mysticism? :-P
Umm - could provide more flamebite than this thread   ;)

But some one will object that it is 'off topic' and, indeed, I guess it is
  :-P

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply