Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
Date:Friday, May 13, 2005, 8:29
> [---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---]
*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.
*chuckle* *nod*
> 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?
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...) - Sai