Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, May 18, 2005, 18:25|
On Wednesday, May 18, 2005, at 12:42 , Sai Emrys wrote:
> Ray Brown:
>>> 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 :)
> Actually, what this makes me think of is that Remi's row&col example
> was just a different, direct-conversion format for nested parenthesis.
Gosh, yes, so it is. It can be completely re-written, without any loss of
data, in one long string in LISP notation :)
> And yes, I am talking CS-term "linear", like a stack or queue.
That is what assumed: non-liner = not using linear data structures.
Remi's example is clearly using linear data structures. It even needs more
than just the grid of 'semagrams', otherwise you get potential sequences
like "[The ] Kingdom of Yferosia, [which is] made of light, [is] burning
all [its people]" - which, from the context of the story, is not the
I gather from Remi's mail on 8th May that:
"That's what the thick lines are here for: to prevent such misreading. Do
use such an old browser that it isn't CSS aware? Ad: Mozilla or nothing!
Unfortunately, that is pointless for those of us who use mailers to read &
send email. My mailer just turned Remi's HTML stuff into a TIFF and all
the thick (and thin?) lines are completely missing. But with care it is
fairly obvious where the thick lines should be (I think).
> or not it involves *lines* - that is, those things one draws with one
> stroke of a pen from point A to point B - to me seems wholly
I agree. I don't know how this misunderstanding came about. I probably
referred in one of my mails to a line, meaning either a horizontal line of
'semagraphs' or a vertical line of 'semagraphs', and Remi thought I was
referring to one of those lines that I couldn't see!
>>> 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
>> 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
> *laugh* Indeed. Which is why it is so strange to me to have it be
> portrayed ad the communication itself, and suggestions for something
> else therefore appearing like a desire for telepathy by constrast.
Even if humans had evolved the ability to communicate by thought alone, I
suspect our communication would still be a shadow of our real thoughts. I
don't think many people would be happy with the idea that their thoughts
could all be read by anyone within 'reading distance' - we would most
surely still process our thoughts before transmission :)
But thinking how telepathic beings might write their 'thought transmission'
might be a way of starting - also I vaguely hoped that some other people
might get interested because such creatures do turn up in con-worlds, I
believe, and it might be a little more convincing if they did not appear
to think linearly in Anglo-American :)
>> 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
> Oh, certainly. I just think that a research-based design would turn
> out to be superior.
> I don't think that we have that kind of
> understanding yet, or will likely have it in the next hundred years
> (and I'm a CogSci major, so ought to be optimistic about such
I know medical science is advancing all the time, but somehow I don't
think I'll survive that long ;)
> ... but we can certainly use what we know now.
Yes, it's a start.
> For that matter, it might serve as a test of competing theories of
> thought. If a system accurately mirrors the theory, then the one that
> is more accurate should also be the one with higher comprehension,
> retention, quick-comprehension, etc. rates, and be more robust against
> a game of Telephone.
A very valid point. My main problem is my lack of knowledge about these
competing theories or, indeed, much knowledge about cognitive science - ah
well, a bit more research I guess :)
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760