Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 23:44
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. And yes, I am talking CS-term "linear", like a stack or queue. Whether 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 irrelevant.
> 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.
Per above, you could consider it a one-deep fractal. Would need N+1d for an N-deep, if you extended it; obviously not a workable solution. (Probably could be made more efficient, but I think it'd still be at least O(log n), not O(1).)
> > "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 :)
The first is mine; the second is a Zen proverb also used to talk about art.
> > 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.
*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.
> 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 things)... but we can certainly use what we know now. 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.
> But some one will object that it is 'off topic' and, indeed, I guess it is > :-P
Sounds like a topic heading to me... - Sai


Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>