Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, May 14, 2005, 17:06|
On Saturday, May 14, 2005, at 03:00 , Remi Villatel wrote:
> I've always believed that a language influences your tought. Another
> system, in particular if it's as special as a 2dWS would be much like an
> another language. Sapir-Worf and so on...
The sig below shows what I think of Sapir-Worf. But the sort of 2d writing
I have in mind is the exact opposite: it is to record thought! *Thought
comes first & must determine the writing.*
> I respond to Sai's suggestion but in a too twisted way. I quote myself:
> I was thinking about real pictures but even if a picture is better than
> 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.
> [---The egyptian part---]
Logograms and ideograms are not the same thing. I still have problems
understanding how this relates to ancient Egyptians - but no matter. More
to the point, I do not find Chinese writing hermetic.
> That's why I used words. I couldn't find anything better. Words are
Are they? Lexical words, morphosyntactic words, phonological words, and
orthographic words do not always co-incide by any means.
> I know some 2D-zealots strongly disagree
This is not a fair or reasonable statement IMO.
> but I don't see why we couldn't use
> linear elements in a 2dWS. To draw a square, you use lines. So, using
> isn't a 2D-heresy. ;-)
If you read my past mails you will see that I have said just that!! Of
course a using linear rows and columns is two-dimensional. You can even
use diagonals! No-one AFAIK has said otherwise. Who are these zealots who
who hold this to be a heresy?
But the subject line is "Non-linear / full-2d writing systems" - it is not
just "2d writing system".
A system using linear elements is - er - not non-linear :)
There is of course no reason why we cannot have a thread dealing with all
kinds of 2d writing, but so far no one has started one.
> We aren't designing a 2D-IAL, just a writing system.
No one as far as I am aware is designing a 2D-IAL. I strongly suspect that
this very moment several people are designing *quite different* 2d writing
schemes; as Patrick said when he announced the 2d writing comp:
I make no other assumptions about the purpose or motivation of the script.
Constructors of artlangs will by personal necessity construct very
different systems than IALers, who will construct different systems than
creators of pseudo-natural languages, etc. Each of these camps will have
very different notions about what the "best" such system entails.
How about turning our energies from discussion to actual implementation?
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760