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

J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:

>On Thu, 5 May 2005 15:53:54 +0100, Joe <joe@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>>J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 5 May 2005 02:15:27 -0700, Sai Emrys <saizai@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Human languages are essentially linear (they are sequences of "words").
>>>>>
>>>>>
>Ergo,
>
>
>>>>>writing sytems for human languages are essentially linear as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Your argument is circular here, if you intend it as one of 'purpose'.
>>>>Certainly, I would agree that a writing system *intended* to 'fix
>>>>language' as you call it - and I presume that you make the common
>>>>equation that "real language" = "speech" - would need to be linear.
>>>>That's obvious.
>>>>
>>>>But I would strongly disagree that a writing system *need* do so at
>>>>all, and cannot exist entirely separate of a spoken language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You can do that, but it's rather unusual. Most would consider e.g. maths or
>>>formal logics a notational system, but not a writing system. Writing systems
>>>are usually considered the subgroup of notational systems that represent
>>>languages.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You're rather limiting the use of 'language', there.  I'd suggest that
>>language can be independent of speech - it's anything that can
>>theoretically convey any meaning, given appropriate vocabulary.
>>
>>
>
>"Human language", then?
>
>
>
>
Well, Human spoken language.   I can see that  a two-dimensional spoken
language could  be richer, but I'm not clever enough to think of a way
to avoid a linear core.