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

>> 1. Anything finitely representable (including anything with finite
>> inputs) can be represented by a 1-dimensional string.  There's no use
>> making a definition that says something is irreducible to a 1d string.
>> However, we can make a weaker requirement that our 2d communication
>> cannot morph into a topological 1-d thread.  That is, there must be at
>> least one loop (where ends reconnect) or one branch.  From this, for it
>> to be interesting, loops and/or branches must have additional
>> communicative value in the 2d writing system.
>
> Agreed. Is it attackable on the "finitely" side also?
Yes, but that's where interest in human-useable languages comes in for me.
Something of intermediate interest might be an infinite work that we could
_read_, but could never write--some claim this for religious canons and
Borges had a few stories about this....

>> 2. With that, I'd like to propose a more general definition of
>> 2d-writing that turns some of the past debate in this thread into a
>> variable of the writing system:  The loops and branches can be most
>> common in a writing system at either:
>>   a. the word level (including iconographic languages,
>>       like cuneiform and Chinese)
>>   b. the phrase level (a la sentence diagramming)
>> OR
>>   c. the sentence/multi-phrase level.
>
> Hm. "Loops and branches" at a word level? I don't understand how
> you're applying that.
Hm.  Let's say to the untrained eye that '2d' looks like a (connected)
'squiqqly mess' :-)  Do you see a bunch of linear blocks of squiggly
messes, where a fluent reader tells you each squiggly mess corresponds to
a word (e.g. chinese, say)--that's (a).

Another WS, there are long linear threads, and few connections.  When a
fluent reader reads, you notice, his hand traces a linear path through a
whole sentence, but sometimes when he begins a new sentence it goes off in
a non-linear way.  Only at the page-level and larger does it look
like a 'squiggly mess.'  That's (c).

(b) is in between and what I'm most interested in (and probably what most
of us have understood as 2d throughout this thread).  Here, the fluent
reader, diverges from a linear path at predicates or particple phrases as
he speaks; if you can tell that much

This a,b,c breakdown, I realize still somewhat presumes that a fluent
reader of the 2dWS can map its contents to linearized speech.  I
understand this is a subset of all NLF2DWS, however I think it's an
important subset.  Somewhat related to your human-cognition question
below, this adds a constraint which almost ensures human-cognition.  I
agree with Ray that a 'writing system' really should relate to a
language--it's what makes it different from illustrations and
bytecode :-)

> Also, you're missing another thing that 2d brings: more positioning.
> Linear you only have "before" and "after", + distance (maybe); 2d you
> have 360 degrees + distance (less if broken down into something
> distinguishable, but at least 9 or so).
You've said it eloquently this way.  That's _exactly_ what it brings, by
definition.  Mapping that extra degree of freedom to some kind of meaning
is what makes a 2d writing system.

> You also have potential orientational meaning - i.e. VX might be
> different from >X or <X (assume V/</> is the same character). This
> would be permuatative.
This seems like an intriguing idea.  It should be noted that this
alone would not make something 2d--the characters would need to connect in
at least one other way besides 'before' and 'after' as you said above,
besides changing their orientation.

>>sky: ---
> 2. Personally, I'm interested in human-usable 2d writing, which adds a
> host of constraints.  With that, I think 2d writing can be interesting
> even if it doesn't do something unique that 1d writing can also do.  It
> just needs to do something *better*.
> ----
Sazai:
> *nod* Which is what I meant when I was talking about the NL2d->L2d
> translation being too lossy. That is, it's almost certainly possible
> at least on a theoretical level... but so is programming a major
> project in byte code. :-P
Right.  If you look back at my livejournal post, this is what I'm most
concerned about :-)

> For maps: What makes for a good map? That is, one that gives the most
> information at first glance, on search, on detail, etc. Colors are I
> think one major thing, as well as size of text / line etc. One problem
> that I think will need to be dealt with (and I see in, e.g., your
> constitution example) is having too much being processed at once, and
> being overwhelming. You would need either something that is built to
> handle "spotlighting" - that is, being read in some particular order
> and intentionally ignoring the rest to do that focus - or to handle
> chunking (like a map), where you basically have a cognitive 'zoom',
> and any particular level of zoom/focus only has a graspable (7+-2?)
> amount of information-chunks.
Colors are another degree of freedom, but they are not 2d.  I've made a
special effort in Ouwiyaru NOT to use colors, because I think that should
be a tool for the author to use in presentation.  That shouldn't stop
anyone else, of course!

I think good maps have a high information-to-'dark pixel' ratio.  The more
cluttered the map, the more information it should represent.  Next time
I'm at Barnes & Noble, I'll give the reference to a very good book (didn't
buy it, but read it at the store) about visual design, etc.  Also, the
more likely it is that someone wants to go from point A to point B, the
easier it should be to see how to do it.  While tracing the path, we
want might want to know:
   What to sight-see
   Important info (road blocks, police nets, rest areas, etc.)
   Alternative routes (if we have trouble with the standard way)

> Another qualification would be that of databases: difficulty of
> browsing, search, retrieval, insertion, and deletion.
*nod*

> ---
>   e. 2d gives more freedom to the reader in what order they want to read
> the text.  1d largely gives a single order.  2d gives at least as many
> ways as there are loops and branches (and more likely 2^n ways).
> ---
>
> *nod* So do you have ideas for how to deal with the "but I want my
> linearity!" complaint (in re. stories, etc.)? For that matter,
> order-of-presentation has been a pretty important part of writing for
> a while now - e.g. for presentations, arguments, stories, instruction,
> etc. Presumably a web could be made to be more easily traversable in
> particular ways, due to the arrangement - in fact, I suspect it would
> be rather difficult to *avoid* having bias on reading order - so we'd
> need a fairly different way to handle it.
In Ouwiyaru, this is mostly done by marking what 'kind' of text you're
about to follow (an argument, an example, a history etc.).  I've taken the
perspective that the linearity in the kinds of texts you list is _good_,
and the non-linear text simply provides a way to 'layer' these texts over
each other.  Generally, you have a history in linear, and details are in
footnotes or break the history.  In mathematics, you show the equations,
and then the arguments are linearly 'along side them.'

Another solution, which requires an even closer mapping to a spoken
language is assuming a specific way of reading (at least one!).  If the
reader 'goes off the path'--the 2d makes the diversions closer, and might
make returns more graceful, but the reader would still know that they're
deviating from one path.  I don't necessarily favor this.  I'd prefer
junctions be neutral, and readers could choose one or the other paths
depending on what they want to read (more) about.

> Not to mention the more subtle technique of trying to play with
> order-of-comprehension - what I think Teoh called the "aha!" form of
> storytelling. ;-)
Related to thought-maps, etc.  One thing that 2d writing might do is
simply expect someone to stare at a larger picture for _longer_ rather
than reading it linearly--the same way one studies an equation.  I think
this expects too much of readers, myself.  I think what you're getting at
is sometimes you _want_ linearity (e.g. joke punchlines).  In Ouwiyaru,
you always _can_ be linear (though in certain circumstances it might be a
little forced).  It depends what kind of meaning you attach to the
non-linear aspect--is it something the author can 'maneuver around' or
will they be forced to write non-linearly.

Somewhat related, one way I've worked on my language is thinking of each
opportunity to branch as a possible _placeholder_ for information.  So a
text might start out completely linear, but as people modify, or add
information to the text, the original would not have to be 'corrupted.'
The idealistic side to me also wanted this aspect to call people's
attention to what the author was leaving out (e.g. sources, definitions,
authors, etc.)...

> ---
> My 2d writing system was developed somewhat before I knew I wanted to do
> all these things, so I'm still working on including them in a way that is
> satisfiably integrated.
> ---
> *laugh* Sounds like my entire conlanging career. But I got derailed
> entirely into working on figuring out wtf I wanted to do on a meta /
> theoretical level...
I finally broke my notebook into four sections.  The first was
meta/theoretical; 2nd was the 'grammar'; 3rd was sample texts; 4th was
phonetics.  Otherwise, I would lose more general conclusions within more
specific discussions...  Now, I'm trying just to use the computer, to sort
it all out.  I think what I need is a non-linear writing system! ;-)

> For one, there is the question of form, as Sky pointed out. I.e.
> ubiquitous 2d-value-added (hence, loops, branches, & positioning).
> This in itself is IMO a worthy endeavor, since it can by itself be a
> good argument for NLF2d being "worth it".
>
> For two, there is the question of content. Or more accurately, of
> "nativeness" / "intuitiveness", as I might call it - that is, how
> close is the manifestation to the internal source? We all start with
> something underlying a "speech act" (heh) - some communicative intent,
> or a thought, etc. I would like the manifestation of that to be as
> close as possible to the "real thing".
>
> This is because I make a couple assumptions I should probably make explicit:
> a) Closeness -> ease of understanding, if you already share a similar
> background. IOW, it ought to be more intuitive, more easily
> understood.
> b) Closeness -> ease of expression (once you're used to it and perhaps
> "if sufficiently introspective")
> c) Closeness -> minimization of translation error
> d) There *is* an underlying, nonlinguistic, thought.
> e) Unintentional misunderstanding is the primary cause of inter-entity
> conflict.
This is a good list.  I think (d) is problematic for a couple reasons:
'thought' is not discrete--There are no real boundaries between one
'thought' and another.  I would add an (f) which is very important: The
author wishes to communicate what's expressed.  For an enormous amount of
sociological reasons, people lie and suppress their failures/fears/etc.
Half of the problem, at least, is that people don't _want_ to communicate.
Obviously, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it easy ;-)

> A simple example of intuitiveness: IMHO, ASL is *WAY* better than
> English at describing events that involve spatial movement. E.g.
> describing an automobile accident, or how someone was walking... it's
> denser and more eloquent than words, inherently. Can that be extended
> to *thought*, though? Or to everything?
>
> (BTW, Sky: What "constraints" do you think human cognition imposes on
> 2d language?)
I think the 'constraint' that we really want is for it to be possible for
humans to be _fluent_ in the WS.  This means possibly using the same part
of the brain for language.  If we exclude that, then we still need to make
sure that the human is still 'selecting' actions (like we do with words).
Problems that human brains solve slowly should not be part of the WS.
One possibe way around this, is to also assume a computer is the
medium--then, perhaps the computer can solve any hard problems in real
time.

> Sky again:
> ---
> If anything, a 2d writing system will 'get in the way' more so than a 1d
> writing system, because implicitly a 2d writing system pre-defines the
> axes in some way.  That is, whether 2d writing is defined by axis (Remi's
> example from May 8th), intersection (like mine), branch, loop or some
> combination of these, definitions will make 'free' use of the 2d space
> less possible, not more.
> ---
>
> *nod* True. Depending on the form, of course; I think axis- (Remi's)
> or fixed-positional- (Pinuyo's) based use would be a lot more
> restrictive than yours, or of atom-and-relation. But then, does it
> matter? I don't believe that there *exists* so-called "free" use of
> anything linguistic (including "free word order"); it, too, conveys
> something - generally subtle shades of pragmatic meaning or emotional
> effect.
>
> So IMO, it is utterly useless to have "free" anything that can be
> utilized grammatically... but I am very much for having emotional
> effect etc. being treated as equally worthwhile aspects of grammar. (I
> find it rather perplexing when a linguist tells me that some
> particular phrase is in "free variation" with another, and handwaves
> the usage differences. WTF, man? I thought linguistics was about
> figuring out how we use language; why pretend that inflection doesn't
> exist just 'cause it's hard to pin down?)
Well, free use, can mean humans are conscious of the rule, and we
occasionally break it on purpose to call attention to that part of
communication.  "I stand orange on!" doesn't make sense in English, but it
brings your attention to 'orange' and 'on'--not just in the absurdity, but
your 'grammar' part of the brain, as well.

I'm still skeptical of Ray's hope that 2dWS could somehow help with a
middle ground of 'free-but-regulated' use, but I want to think about this
more.

> ---
> Before representing the 'thought behind the words' you need to know what
> kind of structures (nouns, verbs, etc) 'pure thought' operates in.
> ---
>
> Agreed. But do you really think it operates in something resembling
> that sort of category?
No, but the categories of a language have an extra requirement that I
don't think the brain's atoms require--they need to interface well: nouns
go very well with verbs and adjectives to create a larger picture.  But in
choosing different categories to create a language, I think this community
is the right place to look for alternative ideas! ;-)

> --
>> but so far, this is how I see it:  If writing relies on
>> common signifiers between writer and reader, then the only thing that gets
>> in the way more than words is NOT having words.
>
> Yet 'word' is one of those concepts that are tricky to pin down.
> ---
Yet try having this discussion without the word 'word' :-)  I don't
think
words require explicit definitions--they need to be common references
among the people communicating.  To me, the more common references the
easier is communication.

> I found that _Describing Morphosyntax_ generated a bunch of ideas for
I broke down and ordered this book from amazon...  very much, looking
forward to it.

> And I'd assert that this is also a critical part of the intended
> communication, and as such the language should be designed to support
> it, rather than handwaving it away into "free use" or other such
> nonsense. "Body language" is a part of the in-person communication,
> and a grammatical one at that... I would personally rather like to see
> it be taught in schools alongside verbs and adjectives. In any case,
> if the communication has that - what we might call in English
> "intonation" or "inflection" or other non-explicit but still
> grammatical and included - it should be represented in the form,
> whichever mode it's in.
>
> Which brings up the question: how do you represent the various
> emotional inflections in NL2d? And how can you make explicit grammar
> for something that is implicit?
Can some degree of freedom be used?  I think this is what Ray had in mind
when he was referring to your 'words get in the way' idea.

> ---
> Maybe Sai could point us to current thinking on this in cognitive science
>    :)
> ---
>
> OK, a (very) short summary of the ideas given to me at Berkeley. Ask
> [snip]
thanks.  this is much food for thought.

cheers,
sky

Reply