Ray Brown wrote:
Note: 2DWS = 2D writing system. (My fingers refuse to type it once more.)
[---CUT---]
>>Yes and no. I said "A few words one above the other" because it's a
>>convenient way to write them but that's of no importance. What matters is
>>that these few words describe a mental image *together.* That's why I
>>used a framing around my semagrams;
> Like a cartouche around a proper name :)
Exactly but a colored background would have the same effect and it would
remove the "cartouche's effect". Whatever way to separate groups of words
would fit in.
> But if the _words_ describe a mental image when taken together is it not
> necessary to know how the words relate to one another, otherwise we could
> finish up with ambiguities like the infamous "little girls' school"?
Ambiguity is context related. If there were a context telling us what kind
of girls you are talking about, there wouldn't be any ambiguity. Let's hope
a 2DWS would help us clarify our mind and get rid of ambiguous expressions.
>>I think that losing data is the only purpose of a 2D writing system:
> ?? Loosing _data_ doesn't seem a good idea to me. Nor have I considered
> this the purpose of 2d writing.
Ach y fi! 2 o's in "losing". I guess it's a typo. ;-)
>>To lose datas
> Ach y fi! Either a double plural or a pluralized count noun or, hopefully,
> a typo :)
Grumble... Grumble... It's just a french word. At least, I never write
"data" without an "s" in French. Grumble... Grumble... ;-)
>>that are unncessary for the reader to understand. Our linear writing
>>system is so much full of superfluous data that we can get bored by a text
>>on a subject that however interests us.
> That sounds to me just like plain bad writing! If the data is not
> necessary and, indeed, superfluous, then IMO it should not be there quite
> irrespective of whether the writing is 1d, 2d or 3d.
What I meant is that a 2DWS could enable you to ignore details that you
don't need to be able to understand. In the linear writting, you must read
from the start to the end before to be able to say "I already knew most of
it". Jumping over a half sentence isn't practical. A 2DWS should enable you
to say "I know enough about this, I prefer to learn more about that". Here,
"superfluous" and "unnecessary" were meant only from a subjective point of
view. Whatever writing system, you can't prevent an author from writing more
than a future reader will need.
[---CUT---]
> But I thought Sai wanted a writing that did _not require_ a reduction to
> speech. So what has speaking got to do with it?
>
> Indeed, didn't Sai refer to the linearization required by speech as a
> "bottleneck"? I quote:
[---CUT---]
I didn't read or I forgot. This thread is very dense, to say the least.
Besides, that's nobody but Sai himself that brings back the subject of
"linearization". And what's the point of having a text that you can't speak
about? Sooner or later you'll meet somebody that read the same 2D text or
somebody you wish he reads it to be able to talk about it. Unless you want
to start a cult of people who communicate only through 2D texts. Just like
those teenagers who don't speak anymore but send 1000 of SMS per hour. ;-)
This confirm my idea that a 2DWS can only have an indirect connection with
speech.
Now, excuse me but I have a bunch of ideograms to create until june 30th... ;-)
--
==================
Remi Villatel
maxilys_@_tele2.fr
==================