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

J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:

>On Thu, 5 May 2005 02:15:27 -0700, Sai Emrys <saizai@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Human languages are essentially linear (they are sequences of "words"). Ergo,
>>>writing sytems for human languages are essentially linear as well.
>>>
>>>
>>Your argument is circular here, if you intend it as one of 'purpose'.
>>Certainly, I would agree that a writing system *intended* to 'fix
>>language' as you call it - and I presume that you make the common
>>equation that "real language" = "speech" - would need to be linear.
>>That's obvious.
>>
>>But I would strongly disagree that a writing system *need* do so at
>>all, and cannot exist entirely separate of a spoken language.
>>
>>
>
>You can do that, but it's rather unusual. Most would consider e.g. maths or
>formal logics a notational system, but not a writing system. Writing systems
>are usually considered the subgroup of notational systems that represent
>languages.
>
>
You're rather limiting the use of 'language', there.  I'd suggest that
language can be independent of speech - it's anything that can
theoretically convey any meaning, given appropriate vocabulary.