On Thursday, May 19, 2005, at 03:29 , Remi Villatel wrote:

> Just to fuel our 2D discussion:

I guess Remi will expect a response from - so I'll not disappoint him  :)

> For the fun, I worked on something everybody should recognize which I
> "translated"

So I noticed. My first reaction when I saw it was that it reminded me
straightaway of the 'box analysis' of English that we used to do in school
50 years ago, except it used pretty colors  :)

BTW why the quotes?

> in an evolved version of the first exemple of 2D writing I
> made. (This time, the stupid mailers shouldn't destroy my beautiful work.
> )  ;-)

I know - annoying of some us using mailers for email   ;)

> Some explanations: Green means container (node) and red means content
> (branch/leaf).

Yep - when I looked more closely I saw it was not, of course, box analysis.
  It is a tree.

> (Blue is always abviously contained.) Any way, everything should be quite
> clear.

Colors make it look pretty - but if they are an essential part of the
representation, I have to asked how those afflicted with color-blindness
are suppose to cope. Partial color-blindness affecting green and/or red is,
  I believe, not uncommon among males.

It seems to me, however, that colors are not really needed. You just need
a different shape for the red, green and blue borders/frames/cartouches.

> I won't call it 2D right now

Well it printed out in two dimensions  :)

Why is it not 2D? Whether it is _fully_ 2D is another matter, however.

> but at least I think it's more than linear.

Let me just quote Sai, who:
- on Friday, May 6, 2005, at 02:24 wrote: "Hardly, as they're all
equivalent at an extremely basic level (viz. CS proofs of tree - array
- on Monday, May 9, 2005, at 11:36 wrote: "If it's a tree, then it's
trivially serializable."

Yes, a tree is, I guess, 'more than linear' in concept. But it is a
relatively trivial task to linearize it, including equivalents for your
colors. One of the things I was expected to show when I taught CS was how
a binary tree could be implemented in the linear structure called an array.
  (Not my preferred way of implementing a tree).

> It's a "flat" version of my fractal writing. It's not space saving,

No, it is not. If you want to save space you either write Article 1 of the
Univesal Declaration of Human Rights in shorthand (either 'geometric' like
Gregg & Pitman, or alphabetic like Speedwriting & T-line) or translate
into a conlang briefscript like Speedwords, Babm or Lin. I would like to
be able to add Piashi (~bax) to the latter list - but I still haven't got
to grips with the vocab   :=(

> it isn't worth the trouble but I kinda like it.

I agree with you about its not being worth the trouble. This time I will
quote myself, as:
- on Friday, May 13, 2005, at 06:45 I wrote: "I don't see what advantage
2d has for recording (linear) speech - it may be novel, intriguing,
aesthetically pleasing etc - but advantageous?"
- On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 07:43 I wrote:
As I see it a 2d writing system could be developed to represent some
spoken language (whether actually spoken or a conlang that could be spoken)
  .......... but, apart from novelty and possibly aesthetic value - I do
not see what significant advantage this has over other writing systems,
therefore I do not find it very interesting. But that does *NOT* mean that
I think it is wrong, or think it is a heresy or any other such nonsense.
......But for me, 2d writing only gets interesting if it adds something
which cannot be done (adequately) in current (or past) writing systems.

Indeed, your version seems to _subtract_ from the origin. Certainly it
adds an ambiguity which is not there in the original.

The original marks it clear that _all_ human beings are are born free and
equal etc. As far as I can see there is nothing in your diagram to
indicate that the big red container at the bottom applies universally. The
two blue contained elements {reason} and {conscience} could be construed
as defining the set of human beings who have equality & freedom by birth,
i.e. "those human beings, who are endowed with reason and conscience, are
born free & equal...." - but others aren't. That leaves it open to
totalitarian regimes to decide which human beings lack either reason or
conscience (or both) and thus decide who are not born free & equal - and
obviously anyone disagreeing with the regime must at least lack reason!

The notion of 'endowment' is surely missing from your version. Why is
'reason' & 'conscience' 'by endowment', not treated in the same sort of
way as 'equality' & 'freedom' 'by birth'. I don't understand.

Also I do understand why the container 'behavior' branches off from the
the root node and not from the 'human being' node. Surely the behavior
applies to human being?

I know we will not agree, but according to Plato, the dialectic process
between us two should lead us closer to a true understanding     :)

> Besides, all I can say is that pen and paper should be avoided in 2D --it'
> s
> pure masochism!-- and some powerful 2D-text editor has to be invented!

Isn't that going to restrict the usefulness of any NLF2DWS?

> I spent more hours than I can count on this tiny stuff... <grin>

That's because you insisted on its being neat, tidy and pretty   :)

I found that with blue, red, green & black inks (my pen allows me change
easily between these four colors) I produced a tolerable version fairly
quickly  <grin>

[log in to unmask]
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760