Timeline for Do multi-dimensional writing systems exist?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8 at 4:43 | answer | added | Adam Bittlingmayer | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 5 at 16:36 | comment | added | Lambie | Only codes would work like that. | |
| Apr 5 at 3:12 | answer | added | Sunny | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 31, 2019 at 15:44 | answer | added | vectory | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 29, 2019 at 20:02 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | Not a real-life example, but probably an interesting note if you aren't aware of it: a multi-dimensional writing system is an important plot point in the science fiction novella Story of Your Life, and in the blockbuster movie Arrival which is based on it. | |
| Jul 25, 2019 at 6:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackLinguist/status/1154270195671871496 | ||
| Jul 23, 2019 at 20:29 | comment | added | jlawler | But there is no evidence that "speech is the speakers interpretation of their internal thought process presented for us to figure out". That's one interpretation of it, but "thought processes" is just handwaving. If speech represents anything internal, we are forever barred from observing it. That's the big semantic problem in linguistics. It certainly seems that way from the inside, but when you look at enough data carefully, you realize that people don't all talk or think alike. Not even close. In fact, individual variation in speech is orders of magnitude more significant. | |
| Jul 23, 2019 at 18:15 | comment | added | vectory | @jlawler that is short selling the unintended depth of the question, because frequency, distance and dissimilarity of symbols plays a huge role in speech. If speech is the speakers interpretation of their internal thought process presented for us to figure out certain or (in case of this question) rather uncertain thought processes, then it must retain some of the structure of the highly parallel thought process. You've talked about pushing down in the context of syntax parsing before. Is syntax "linear" in some sense, isn't semantics ambiguous? Is writing easy to disambiguate from reading? | |
| Jul 23, 2019 at 9:34 | answer | added | Keelan | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jul 23, 2019 at 5:27 | answer | added | Mathieu Bouville | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 23, 2019 at 1:00 | answer | added | WavesWashSands | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 22, 2019 at 19:30 | answer | added | user23769 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 22, 2019 at 12:56 | answer | added | Michaelyus | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 22, 2019 at 11:59 | history | edited | Sir Cornflakes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixt headline (gr.)
|
| Jul 22, 2019 at 2:50 | comment | added | Luke Sawczak | Islamic calligraphy is an interesting edge case | |
| Jul 21, 2019 at 22:16 | comment | added | jlawler | To the extent that writing systems represent language, they have to be mostly one-dimensional because language is time-dependent -- speech events happen with timing implicit. There are parasitic dimensions, like intonation and stress, correlated gestures, facial expressions, and eye movements, which could be represented -- and occasionally are, in special contexts like ballet transcriptions -- but aren't normal parts of orthography, which usually restricts itself to phonemic segments in order. | |
| Jul 21, 2019 at 15:37 | comment | added | Owain | Cross-writing was used to save paper and postage costs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossed_letter | |
| Jul 21, 2019 at 14:24 | comment | added | melissa_boiko | I'm not sure what a matrix-like arrangement would look like; a page of text could be already seen as a matrix, with the letters filling columns and the lines being the rows. (A curious variant were boustrophedon systems, in which the direction of filling changed for each row.) | |
| Jul 21, 2019 at 13:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 26, 2019 at 7:57 | |||||
| Jul 21, 2019 at 13:07 | history | asked | Diagon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |