Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?
|From:||Sai Emrys <saizai@...>|
|Date:||Friday, May 13, 2005, 8:29|
> > 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:
*notices the first part of that* Hm. "Not require" a reduction to
speech? I'm not sure what you mean by that.
If you mean that reduction to speech = bottleneck, and I'd rather have
a communications/recording medium that didn't need/have the
bottleneck, then definitely yes.
> 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
Sure, you should be able to talk about it. I hope I haven't given the
impression that I consider speech useless. (Of course, I'd rather have
a combined speech/sign system myself, but that's another thread...)
So in that light, I think linearization *is* an important
consideration, but it should be one that is required to adapt to the
medium, rather than vice versa. If a more optimal NL2dWS is hard to
linearize, too bad for the linearization. :-P (Of course, you'd still
have the option of just talking *about* the same material, rather than
trying to *translate* or *read* it...)