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

> Now it seems to me that while ideograms (in the proper meaning) might be
> usable in a NLF2DWS, they would suffer the same sort of drawback as
> logograms: we would need a few thousand of them. What we probably need is
> something more atomic. That is why I was interested when I read about
> Egaña's 20 thought categories. What are the 'basic units' of thought?
Agreed on the "anything-but-pure-meaning" thing; I don't think
phonetic or spoken-morphemic-equivalent components would be optimal.
E.g., I'm pretty sure there has to be a more powerful / aesthetic /
useful way to describe plurality, TAM, copular relations, possession,
etc., than a morpheme. :-P

However, I suspect that going more atomic would run into the old
problem a la Speedwords et al - that is, that they are not truly
composable, for one, and for two, that you would need a very large
amount to accurately describe even a relatively simple concept. (E.g.,
if "game" is a cognitively-real category to you, how the bloody hell
do you *define* it, let alone by atoms? It seems that it can only be
referenced directly and still be accurate. Viz. poker, badminton,
Life, debate, 'playa' sex, backgammon, dress-up, tag, etc...)

> It also seems to me that if one devised a NLF2DWS it would not really be
> appropriate to 'translate' some existing text into it. On 12th May Sai
> wrote that a NLF2DWS should "not [be] linearizable without loosing damn
> near everything in the process in a way that's cognitively irrecoverable".
Not "should" per se, but I would be very interested in making it so. I
am not sure that it is possible, when phrased that strongly (though I
certainly don't belive it to not be possible either; I'm
optimistically neutral). However, I think it's a good metric for how
worthwhile the 2d-ness is; the more irrecoverable the translation, the
more added value it is giving you, QED.

But I would point to my earlier mention of "translation" as opposed to
"interpretation" etc. That is, you would need to recover the *actual*
meaning of the text - background and all, if necessary - and try to
write *that*.

I think a very related thing that would be necessary to research (and
I know that a lot of research has already been done on it, it's just
not stuff I've read) is on visual design and presentation in general.
I'm pretty sure that the presentation of information in a visual
medium is an existing field - can anyone find out what are
linguist-accessible books about it, or other summaries of important
conclusions / theories? I remember being recommended one a long time
ago, but I've forgotten it.

 - Sai

Reply