Print

Print


Ray Brown wrote:

	[---CUT---]
>>Exactly but a colored background would have the same effect and it would
>>remove the "cartouche's effect". Whatever way to separate groups of words
>>would fit in.

> Yep - but the colored background is a cartouche by another name, isn't it?
>   I can see that a cartouche or something similar may be useful in certain
	|---CUT---]

If I see one more time the word cartouche, I'll start a carnage! (Cartouche
= cartridge in French.)  ;-)

	[---CUT---]
>>Ambiguity is context related. If there were a context telling us what kind
>>of girls you are talking about, there wouldn't be any ambiguity. Let's
>>hope a 2DWS would help us clarify our mind and get rid of ambiguous
>>expressions.

> Of itself it would not.

I've always believed that a language influences your tought. Another writing
system, in particular if it's as special as a 2dWS would be much like an
another language. Sapir-Worf and so on...

	[---CUT---]
> To the above Sai replied:
> "Er? But yes, /me reiterates suggestion. :-P"
>
> But it was because Remi seemed not to take your suggestion on board that I
> asked the above question. As I see it, Remi is still using linear elements
> within a frame/ cartouche. I do not like leaving things like "a little
> girls' school" to context to disambiguate. There are plenty of natlangs
> that do not allow the phrase to be ambiguous (and plenty that do). A
> NLF2DWS should not do worse than many natlangs on this!
>
> BTW - for any readers who have forgotten Sai's suggestion, here it is
> again:
> "If you're going to treat them as a whole, why not fuse them 2d, or even
> in a completely overlapping / integrating fashion? Why keep the bounds of
> the constituent atoms and then string those along?"

I respond to Sai's suggestion but in a too twisted way. I quote myself:

------
I was thinking about real pictures but even if a picture is better than 1000
words, some words are also better 1000 pictures. "Freedom", "Thoughts",
"Conlang" are the first 3 examples that come to my mind.

Logograms/Ideograms could be really good but also very hermetic.
[---The egyptian part---]

That's why I used words. I couldn't find anything better. Words are obvious.
------

I rejected Sai's suggestion very quickly. Just one word: "hermetic". I was
obviously promoting my own 2dWS.  ;-)  But there is also another reason: the
amount of work to create a new ideographic system. If you put linear
elements like words too close or if you connect them in an unusual way, they
become illegible. An ideographic system capable of fusing several elements
in a single glyph is the only logical way.

I know some 2D-zealots strongly disagree but I don't see why we couldn't use
linear elements in a 2dWS. To draw a square, you use lines. So, using words
isn't a 2D-heresy.  ;-)  We aren't designing a 2D-IAL, just a writing system.

--
==================
Remi Villatel
[log in to unmask]
==================