Sai, On 15/01/2011 12:37: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:23 AM, And Rosta<[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Well, I can agree that the narrative itself needn't unfold through time, but >> for it to be a narrative it must be telling a story that does extend through >> time. Something that doesn't tell a story is, by definition, not a >> narrative. I guess your point is precisely that the telling (i.e. the >> narrative) needn't iconically mirror the story. > > My point is stronger: I reject (for the sake of argument at least) the > presupposition that narrative, as in a communicative act of > storytelling independent of whatever properties the story told may > have, is necessarily temporal. > > This is I think completely necessitated by the premise of no reified > parse order. > > Would a nontemporal narrative be weird? Perhaps. But I still think > it'd be a narrative. > > If you want to just say by fiat that narrative is *definitionally* > temporal, I request you instead use the qualified term "temporal > narrative" or equivalent, to distinguish your sense from my broader > one, as I've no desire to argue over definitions. And then we can > argue over what properties my broader temporal-agnostic narrative may > have. ;-) The story must extend through time, but the telling needn't. You seem to couch as a disagreement your response to me saying this, yet you seem not to dispute the actual point. If you want to argue that stories needn't be temporal, then I will weigh in with a raft of reasons why temporality is criterial to storyhood. >>> What do you mean by 'orthography' here? >> >> The 'writing' done live is a kind of speech that unfolds in time. >> Orthography translates speech into a permanent record that doesn't unfold in >> time. Recording-and-playback of speech creates a permanent record, but one >> that unfolds in time, without translation into a different mode. > > Ah. Recording-and-playback I think is the native form of a natively > temporal conversational process. (As in, of ones that are—not as in a > claim that all conversations are.) So UNLWS would have no counterpart of spoken languages' written representations of dialogue (dramatic text notation; musical stave notation)? > TTBOMK (Alex?) we have no plan for a flattening of that, though as I > said, it would be possible to indicate this through e.g. the color > channel, which we don't currently use. (We do use saturation, e.g. for > cartouches.) Colour gets you the speaker identification, but not the sequence of turns. >>> We are completely discounting as desiderata any linearization, reified >>> spoken mode, etc. This is meant to be, ahead of all other things, a >>> writing system that takes maximal advantage of its medium. >> >> It does appear crucial to your scheme that it unfolds through time, so that >> while the text itself is not linear, discourse still is. (That's an >> observation, not a criticism, of course.) > > I don't think this is true, as I hinted above. > > Certain kinds of discourse, it's true, are temporal—ones that have > temporally bound back-and-forth. > > But, just thinking offhand: suppose for instance conversational > parties independently compose messages, which are then simultaneously > merged. There is nothing intrinsically temporal to latch on to here, > yet the result of such a process could be argued to be a conversation > (inasmuch as what occurs at most conference panels is 'conversation' > [ok so I'm a bit cynical]). > > I would prefer to start by presuming as little as possible about meta > things like discourse protocols, to leave the field open to > alternates. That's kinda the point of this whole exercise in a way, > after all—to explore the potentials for radically different language. Language is a tool, so designed for particular purposes. While it's true that you can invent something haphazardly and then see what uses it's suited to, my engelangerism prefers to define the purposes first and then seek the best tool for the purposes, in which case you'd want to decide in advance if the language was to be usable for back-and-forth dialogue. But even if you agree with this, you could declare that usability for back-and-forth dialogue is not a requirement. >> 'Easy expressability of linearly difficult concepts' and 'direct >> expression of semantic relationships' are alienly beyond my >> understanding > > Expression of semantic relationships, however, is not alien at all: > it's approximately uber-flowcharts or thoughtmaps. The whole of language -- or at least the whole of the syntacticosemantic side of language is devoted to expression of semantic relationships. So you must mean something more by 'direct expression'. Iconic expression? >> I don't yet see how the grid-based system acts a constraint. > > * it wastes space by reserving it a priori for (ishly) semantic role slots hardly a waste, since this is the very core of language... > * it constrains syntax by forcing directionality—as I think Sky > discussed, syntax is going to be severely stressed as is just from > problems like graph relaxation and crossing avoidance, so making that > worse is bad (Did something get garbled: "as is just from"?) A rectilinear grid forces directionality but does without the need for lines of linkage. If lines of linkage are used instead of the grid, directionality isn't necessary. > * there are (in the naïve case) only 8 (compass-oidal) syntactic roles > something can fill; I imagine one might need far more I don't understand this point. >> But UNLWS uses pictograms for vocables, and so can incorporate the 'binding >> points' into the pictogram. > > Not just. We anticipate having symbols be fungible, such that e.g. > changing the curve or length or thickness or whatnot of something > would have semantic effect. As a trivial example, take 'exchange' vs > 'gift' - that's an inflectional relationship, not suppletive. ('Inflectional' > 'derivational', I think.) >> UNLWS's sparklines and decorations are >> optional extras, serving as abbreviations for what could otherwise in >> principle be expressed by the basic glyph+binding point device. > > Sparklines could not easily be compressed into static glyphs. They're > one of the stronger examples of what I mean by fungible symbols above; > their form *is* data. Instead of, say, a glyph "weigh1" with one binding point for the thing that has weight, and a sparkline for "a lot", you could have "weigh2" with an additional binding point for the amount of weight and a further 1-binding-point glyph for "a lot" (which is how it is in Livagian). >> A predicate pictogram must essentially consist of a set of binding points >> such that the identities (i.e. semantic roles) of the binding points are >> identifiably distinct from one another, and such that the binding points >> form an identifiable whole that is distinct from the pictogram for other >> predicates. -- Yes, this is lovely, reducing language to its purest form, >> with the least possible distortion due to the constraints of the channel. > > Heh, you lost me there. :-P > > I suspect this'll make more sense later once I'm closer to grokking > your perspective, as I'm not thinking of it as predicate-based. 2D-Livagian, as redesigned since yesterday, now consists of 'arthrograms' (or 'arthremes'?) as the basic unit, corresponding to binding points/argument places. Arthrograms belonging to the same predicate are linked by an unbroken line. Arthrograms with the same value/binder are linked by a broken line.One-place predicates consist of a single arthrogram, and the inventory of these comprise the arthrogram inventory. I'll spare you further graphical details. > It's true, though, that we aim for purity of form; it's effectively > entailed by fidelity to and maximally native exploitation of the > channel's capability. I was looking at things from a slightly different perspective: the structure of pure semanticosyntax has a platonic form, and the question is what is the purest way of translating the platonic form of semanticosyntax into a perceptible form. > I should also just stress, as I think this is likely to be another one > of those things that's significant to our design and not easily clear > given its universality in other systems, that NLWS symbols are *not > pictograms*, in that they are not really "symbols" to begin with. > > That is, they are not arbitrary in form, nor are they iconic of what > they represent IRL (rather, they are iconic of *semantic* properties); > they are not self-contained (rather, they are fungible and permeable); > etc. Hmm. To me they still sound like symbols and sound like they tend to be iconic... --And.