Print

Print


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  :)

> http://perso.normandnet.fr/maxilys/first-cut.png
>
> 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
convertability)."
and
- 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?"
and
- On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 07:43 I wrote:
{quote}
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.
{unquote}

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>

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[log in to unmask]
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760