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

> 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.
Why yes, yes it is unusual. Especially if it is to be used that is
something that is *not* merely a notational system that is suited only
to an extremely limited domain.

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. If
you can argue that there is something to the *idea* that is
impractical, impossible, or unsuited to human cognition, that would be
an interesting argument. But your argument is essentially that it is
not a code as [nearly] all other writing systems are... and that's a
chiken-and-egg.

FWIW, I agree with Joe. I am using 'language' to mean 'systematic
communication system used between humans, having certain minimum
capabilities'. I am explicitly *not* using it to mean 'systematic
*speech* communication system used between humans and offshoots
thereof'.

("Minimum capabilities" = generativity, abstractness, modularity,
systematic form->meaning variation, etc.)

 - Sai