Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?
| From: | Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, May 15, 2005, 18:42 |
|---|
On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 01:04 , Remi Villatel wrote:
> Ray Brown wrote:
>
>>> I've always believed that a language influences your tought. Another
>>> writing
>>> system, in particular if it's as special as a 2dWS would be much like an
>>> another language. Sapir-Worf and so on...
>
> I had no idea there was such a war around Sapir-Whorf amongst conlangers.
> It
> really wasn't a flamebait.
Sort of surprised me also that it should be considered flamebait. I
thought the theory had "died a natural death" before the end of the last
century. I just found Paul's post funny. The reference to Romancelang
gender BTW wasn't something I thought up - it has a historic reference
vis-a-vis the SW hypothesis ..... but maybe I had better not continue :)
[snip]
>> .............. But the sort of 2d writing
>> I have in mind is the exact opposite: it is to record thought! *Thought
>> comes first & must determine the writing.*
>
> I was just thinking about a 2dWS that gets closer from thought than our
> linear one. For me two dimensions aren't enough to record my thought; I'd
> rather need four dimensions with sub-spatial wormholes... or the kind of
> fractal writing system I described in a previous post.
I shall assume this is "Remi overstatement for amusement" :)
I'm beginning to get used to it - but you must be patient. To someone
brought up in a culture that goes in for *understatement* for similar
effect, it takes a bit of getting used to :)
But, seriously, yes it may be that 3d writing will be more appropriate -
but let's see how 2d graphic representation goes first. Any theorizing
about whether a 2d script is adequate or not is just that - theorizing -
until it has been achieved and tested.
[snippity snip]
>>> I know some 2D-zealots strongly disagree
>
>> This is not a fair or reasonable statement IMO.
>
> This wasn't meant to be! It was a joke. There's a smiley. "zealot" and
> "heresy" outside of fundamentalist cults can't be taken seriously
> nowadays.
Careful! - tho I take no offense at your reply. But I'm afraid such things
are bandied about as insults. OK - I accept the original wasn't meant to
be offensive either.
>
>>> but I don't see why we couldn't use linear elements in a 2dWS.
>>> To draw a square, you use lines. So, using words isn't a 2D-heresy. ;-
>>> )
>
>> If you read my past mails you will see that I have said just that!! Of
>> course a using linear rows and columns is two-dimensional. You can even
>> use diagonals! No-one AFAIK has said otherwise. Who are these zealots who
>> who hold this to be a heresy?
>
> I didn't remember it was you. So, you're the "2D-zealot". ;-)
Don't quite follow. One thing I am not is a 2d-zealot - in many ways,
quite the opposite: I am a 2d agnostic :)
Eh? But rows and columns are lines! I cannot see anything exaggerated in
saying that a column or a row are linear structures - they are. It was
meant to be just a plain objective statement.
How can a row or a column not be linear? I don't understand.
> Apparently, you changed your mind.
Nope.
>> But the subject line is "Non-linear / full-2d writing systems" - it is
>> not
>> just "2d writing system".
>
>> A system using linear elements is - er - not non-linear :)
>
> Apparently, you changed your mind... again.
Nope. I am still being consistent.
> And what you're talking about is simply impossible.
I'm trying to talk about what Sai envisaged. Whether that is impossible to
achieve or not, I do not know. I did express my doubts early on, but Sai's
enthusiasm has rubbed off on me. Unlike you, I do not have this dogmatic
certainty about its impossibility (or even about it's possibility). As Sai
wrote on Thursday, May 5:
"But we're in the business of *creative* linguistics, are we not? I for
one am not interested in constraining what language can do merely because
it hasn't been done before in a natural language."
> No linear elements means that using columns and rows as layout is
> "forbidden",
No - just that it is irrelevant.
> using any kind of
> drawn connection (line, curve, sinusoid, arrow, etc) is "forbidden"
> because
> setting two elements the one next to the other is "forbidden" (2 dots = a
> line). You're definitively a "2D-zealot". ;-)
That's just plain silly. I am trying to keep to the subject line.
In front of me I have a 2b non-linear representation. It consists of a
matrix of 1024 x 768 pixels. I do NOT 'read' these pixels by rows or by
columns. On my 'desktop' I see a picture of my three grandchildren sitting
in 'sand-cars' built on a beach, with sand dunes in the background & few
small figures, the sky above and some odd icons that my OS requires on the
desktop etc. Yes, some lines are provided by a windbreak on the right edge
of the picture and by a folding seat. But I do not 'read' these linearly!
When I look at the desktop I do not think "Gosh, there are 768 rows and
1024 columns - let me scan through the rows and columns and see what they
are trying to 'tell' me." No - as far as I am concerned the image is
non-linear and I 'read' it as a whole.
Now quite clearly that approach is not likely to be suitable for some
styles of 2d script, namely those representing actual or potential speech,
which is a serial medium and better suited to linear representation.
I have said that I have no objection to 2d writing that uses rows and
columns. Surely you understand that. I am NOT a 2d zealot, even if the
word is meant humorously. *It all depends what one is trying to achieve.*
The subject line of this thread is *non-linear/ full-2d* writing systems.
I did not make it up or start it. I began by being dubious about its
possibility but through the discussions with Sai and H.S. Teoh - which I
found very interesting and stimulating - my imagination got fired ;)
If you wish to have a general discussion about all forms possible 2d
writing systems, then fair enough. But I think to avoid confusion, it
would be better to do this in a separate thread with a clearly stated
subject line.
As I see it a 2d writing system could be developed to represent some
spoken language (whether actually spoken or a conlang that could be spoken)
; this would very probably use rows and columns. But, apart from novelty
and possibly aesthetic value - I do not see what significant advantage
this has over other writing systems, therefore I do not find it very
interesting. But that does *NOT* mean that I think it is wrong, or think
it is a heresy or any other such nonsense.
If people want to discuss this and develop such systems, that's fine.
Indeed, I suspect that at this very moment some such systems are being
developed for the 30th June deadline.
But for me, 2d writing only gets interesting if it adds something which
cannot be done (adequately) in current (or past) writing systems. That's
why Sai's ideas have caught my imagination. I want to be able to use the
whole canvass, so to speak, without being constrained by rows & columns.
> That's why I talked about drawing a square without lines. You can't.
Duh! I've sort of noticed that over the past 66+ years. But who's talking
about _squares_, for goodness sake! Since when has 2d meant square?
A square is a 2d object, therefore all 2d objects are square. Nah - it
makes no more sense than: "Socrates is a mortal, therefore all mortals are
Socrates."
> |---CUT---]
>> How about turning our energies from discussion to actual implementation?
>
> The one doesn't prevent the other. I find this thread about 2dWS one of
> the
> most interesting for some time.
Glad to hear it. But I think if we are to avoid misunderstandings (and
flamebait), we need to be clearer about what we are discussing. I think we
have been talking - to some extent at least - at cross purposes.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760
Replies