There are 22 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Quenya/Sindarin resources?
From: Sharon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Sounds of Quenya?
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Sounds of Quenya?
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Sounds of Quenya?
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Sounds of Quenya?
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Sounds of Quenya?
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: OT: nonlinear fiction -- was: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing
(again)
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: OT: nonlinear fiction -- was: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing
(again)
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: OT: nonlinear fiction -- was: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing
(again)
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: OT: nonlinear fiction -- was: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing
(again)
From: Nokta Kanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:38:19 -0800
From: Sharon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quenya/Sindarin resources?
My personal favorites:
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/
The Ardalambion has a Quenya Course with lessons that you may find useful.
http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/
The Fellowship of the Word Smiths has a small (incomplete?) course on
Sindarin, as well as translations of the lines found in the movie.
I'm sure there are more that you could find by visiting the links at
both of those sites.
Good luck!
Sharon.
On 1/28/06, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, my wife Kathy and I have been watching LOTR again over the last few
> weeks. We finished the second disk of The Two Towers the other night. More
> than once, Kathy has mentioned that "that Elf language" is pretty cool,
> and she'd be interested in learning it.
>
> However, she has a professed and apparently quite real mental block when
> it comes to foreign languages (think Joey from "Friends" learning French).
> My suspicion is that there is enough fan material out there on both Quenya
> and Sindarin for us to find a learning method that suits us.
>
> So: Tolkienistas, what's good? Ideally, I'm looking for free web resources
> at this point, and I think a Word Of The Day would be really useful. Also,
> if there's a flashcard site for Tengwar, that'd be pretty cool. I found
> one with Google, but the user interface is surprisingly opaque. I'll keep
> looking for resources, but if there's a few "best of breed" sites out
> there, I'd love to hear about them.
>
>
>
>
> Paul
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:24:52 -0000
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
--- In [email protected], Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>Two good tests are branching factor and recursivity. If it can't to
>both to arbitrary degrees, it's not what I'm talking about.
Would flow-charts and logic-tables, then, be among examples of fully-
two-dimensional non-linear writing systems? If not both flow-charts
and logic-tables, then, one or the other?
Admittedly the set of semantic relationships they can represent is
limited compared to the entire set of semantic relationships
available in natlangs; but, it appears to me, they do represent those
which they represent, in a fully-two-dimensional non-linear way.
(Note: If there is a requirement that lines do not cross, a two-
dimensional flowchart does have some restrictions on branching and
recursion (they can be unrestricted locally, but there are some
global restrictions on interactions). In particular one cannot have
six items A,B,C,D,E,F which can occur sequentially but which also can
occur in at least one each of the three following pairs;
Either A can be followed by D, or D can be followed by A; AND,
Either B can be followed by E, or E can be followed by B; AND,
Either C can be followed by F, or F can be followed by C.)
>[snip]
>If you are thinking of e.g. Choose Your Own Adventure books, those
>are not nonlinear at all; they are merely branching
>(or 'customized') linear. (Viz: the scene in /The Princess Bride/
>where the kid corrects the grandfather and says how the story is
>obviously *supposed* to go - the story would still be linear either
>way, it's just a change in how it turns out.)
>Every one that I have seen is exclusively intended to have one path
>*at a time* that is possible; attempting to keep track of the full
>tree is extremely difficult. They definitely don't take advantage of
>the actual structural net as an object in itself, which is what I
>was imagining non-linear fiction (or poetry) would be like.
How about Mozart's "Musical Dice Game"* (Musikalisches Würfelspiel),
a 16-measure minuet in which 14 of the 16 measures can be "filled in"
in any of 11 different ways, all of which "sound good (musical)"
regardless of what other choices have been made? It's true that it
can't be "pronounced" (played) more than one way _at_ _a_ _time_; but
didn't Mozart intend it to be _read_ all-ways-at-once? Because there
are, obviously, about 1,518,999,334,332,960 (1.518999 * 10^15) ways
to _listen_ to it; even if everybody in the world listened to a
disjoint set of one-hundred-thousand of them, that would cover only
about two-thirds of them.
* http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,,EXP1237_NAV2-
95_SAR1238,00.shtml
"For each of the 16 bars of a Viennese minuet, the Musical Dice Game
offers 2 choices for the eighth and sixteenth bars, and 11 choices
for each of the other 14 bars. Using a pair of dice to select
randomly among the alternatives for each bar, the player can generate
a wide variety of different melodies. The choices for each bar are
designed in such a way that no matter which combination of bars you
end up with, the result is a pleasing melody that satisfies all the
harmonic and compositional requirements of a Viennese minuet of the
late 1700's."
* http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/
"There are 176 possible Minuet measures and 96 possible Trio measures
to choose from. The result of a dice roll is looked up in a table of
rules to determine which measure to play.
Two six-sided dice are used to determine each of the 16 Minuet
measures (i.e. 11 possibilities for each of 16 measures). One six-
sided die is used to determine each of the 16 Trio measures (i.e. 6
possibilities for each of 16 measures). So in theory, there are
(11^16) * (6^16) = (1.3 * (10^29)) possible compositions."
> [snip]
---
Thanks, Sai; thanks also, Yahya. I've enjoyed reading your posts.
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:34:34 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sounds of Quenya?
So, I think I'm getting a handle on the sounds of Quenya. Here's what I
understand. Please comment with corrections.
a /A/, /A:/
ai /Aj/
au /Aw/
b /b/
c /k/
cc /k:/
d /d/
e /e/, /E:/
eu /ew/
ë /@/ finally, but trema is used for diaeresis elsewhere
f /f/
g /g/
gw /g_w/
h /h/, /x/ preconsonantally, as hy between a front vowel and a consonant
hy /C/, dialectically /S/
hw /W/
i /i_"/, /i:/
iu /ju/, /iw/ historically
l /l/
ll /l:/
ly /L\/
hl /l/, historically /l_0/
m /m/
mm /m:/
n /n/, /N/ before velars
nn /n:/
nw /n_w/
ny /J/, /nj/
ngw /Ng)_w/
o /o/, /o:/
oi /Oj/
p /p/
pp /p:/
qu /k_w/
r /r/, /4/ preconsonantally
rr /r:/
ry is troublesome to me since I can't grok /r_j/
hr /r/, historically /r_0/
s /s/
ss /s:/
t /t/
tt /t:/
ty /t_j/, dialectically /tS/
u /u/, /u:/
ui /uj/
v /v/
w /w/, /v/ initially
x /ks/
That's, I *think* the complete inventory as found in the lessons Sharon
pointed me at.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:38:30 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
Sai Emrys wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>1. Thanks for trying to explain your notion of "non-linear", and how it
>>differs from simply "not presented along a straight line". If I might
>>summarise, I think your meaning of "non-linear" is what I would call
>>"non-sequential". So we're really talking about basic internal structure
>>here, rather than (primarily) about representation.
>
> Two good tests are branching factor and recursivity. If it can't to
> both to arbitrary degrees, it's not what I'm talking about.
What do you mean by "arbitrary degree?" If all symbols are the
same size you're more-or-less restricted to six branches from a
single symbol.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:42:47 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sounds of Quenya?
On 1/28/06, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I think I'm getting a handle on the sounds of Quenya. Here's what I
> understand. Please comment with corrections.
> ë /@/ finally, but trema is used for diaeresis elsewhere
That means "two dots is used for two dots elsewhere". :) And IIRC,
it's not /@/ finally, it's /e/. The diaresis is there to remind
English-speakers that it's not silent, as final E's so often are in
English. I think a final *long* e just gets the accent mark, like a
long vowel anywhere else, but a final *short* e gets the trema. But
it's definitely not a schwa. In Galadriel's Lament, Namarië ends in a
clear vowel.
> ry is troublesome to me since I can't grok /r_j/
I suggest trying to hear it in Japanese, which IIRC has a phonemic
distinction between /r_j/ and /rj/.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:37:48 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sounds of Quenya?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:42:47 -0500, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 1/28/06, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, I think I'm getting a handle on the sounds of Quenya. Here's what I
>> understand. Please comment with corrections.
>
>> ë /@/ finally, but trema is used for diaeresis elsewhere
>
> That means "two dots is used for two dots elsewhere". :)
AIUI, trema is two dots, whereas diaeresis is the phenomenon of not
diphthonizing adjacent vowels (much like umlaut is a phenomenon, not
strictly a diacritic).
> And IIRC,
> it's not /@/ finally, it's /e/.
Yes, you're right. The lessons I'm working from talk about schwa in
English all around where they talk about final ë, and I guess I was
reading too hastily, and missed a "not".
>> ry is troublesome to me since I can't grok /r_j/
>
> I suggest trying to hear it in Japanese, which IIRC has a phonemic
> distinction between /r_j/ and /rj/.
AIUI (again), Japanese has /4/ not /r/. I can't speak for /4_j/ and /4j/,
though, but I'll listen out for it.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:56:08 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sounds of Quenya?
On 1/28/06, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AIUI, trema is two dots, whereas diaeresis is the phenomenon of not
> diphthonizing adjacent vowels (much like umlaut is a phenomenon, not
> strictly a diacritic).
You're right, of course. I read it backwards as "diaresis is used for
trema". I'm not even dyslexic, so I don't have that excuse. Sorry
for the spurious snark.
> >> ry is troublesome to me since I can't grok /r_j/
> >
> > I suggest trying to hear it in Japanese, which IIRC has a phonemic
> > distinction between /r_j/ and /rj/.
>
> AIUI (again), Japanese has /4/ not /r/.
Actually, the realization of the Japanese rhotic seems to vary quite a
bit, and I wasn't being precise by referring to it as /r/. Sorry.
It's true that [4] is one allophone; I think [r\] may even be one.
But hey, if you can do [4_j], you can do [r_j] - it's just [4_j] over
and over and over really fast. ;-)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:54:36 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sounds of Quenya?
Mark J. Reed wrote at 2006-01-28 16:42:47 (-0500)
> On 1/28/06, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, I think I'm getting a handle on the sounds of Quenya. Here's what I
> > understand. Please comment with corrections.
>
> > ë /@/ finally, but trema is used for diaeresis elsewhere
>
> That means "two dots is used for two dots elsewhere". :)
Such a reading, while semantically possible, would be pragmatically
perverse.
> And IIRC, it's not /@/ finally, it's /e/. The diaresis is there to
> remind English-speakers that it's not silent, as final E's so often
> are in English. I think a final *long* e just gets the accent
> mark, like a long vowel anywhere else, but a final *short* e gets
> the trema. But it's definitely not a schwa. In Galadriel's
> Lament, Namarië ends in a clear vowel.
>
> > ry is troublesome to me since I can't grok /r_j/
>
> I suggest trying to hear it in Japanese, which IIRC has a phonemic
> distinction between /r_j/ and /rj/.
I don't think so. I think /r/ can be palatalised before /i/ (and
/j/), but this isn't phonemic.
Anyway, "/r/" in Japanese is approximately [4], and often more-or-less
lateral(ised) - /rj/ even more so, from what I understand. I'm not
sure it would be a useful model for Quenya.
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9408e&L=linguist&D=1&F=&S=&P=971
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:13:45 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
On 1/28/06, tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >Two good tests are branching factor and recursivity. If it can't to
> >both to arbitrary degrees, it's not what I'm talking about.
>
> Would flow-charts and logic-tables, then, be among examples of fully-
> two-dimensional non-linear writing systems? If not both flow-charts
> and logic-tables, then, one or the other?
Flow-charts, yes. Logic tables, not the sort that I'm thinking of
(give an example?).
> (Note: If there is a requirement that lines do not cross, a two-
> dimensional flowchart does have some restrictions on branching and
> recursion (they can be unrestricted locally, but there are some
> global restrictions on interactions). [...]
That would be an aesthetic issue more than a definitional one. And
there are ways to allow crossing and still be understandable - e.g.
different colors, some sort of crossing-over glyph (e.g. the little
bump for circuitry blueprints), etc.
> How about Mozart's "Musical Dice Game"* (Musikalisches Würfelspiel),
Nope, for the same reason as the CYOA books.
> a 16-measure minuet in which 14 of the 16 measures can be "filled in"
> in any of 11 different ways, all of which "sound good (musical)"
> regardless of what other choices have been made? It's true that it
> can't be "pronounced" (played) more than one way _at_ _a_ _time_; but
> didn't Mozart intend it to be _read_ all-ways-at-once? Because there
> are, obviously, about 1,518,999,334,332,960 (1.518999 * 10^15) ways
> to _listen_ to it; even if everybody in the world listened to a
> disjoint set of one-hundred-thousand of them, that would cover only
> about two-thirds of them.
Again - yes, it is branching - but no particular playing of it can
realize both AA and BA and BB and etc at the same time. (As far as the
listener [perceiver] is concerned...)
And no, it's not intended to be *read* all-ways-at-once. Have you ever
tried to do that? It'll be thoroughly confusing and quite unplayable.
It's intended to be read some *particular* way at once.
Neat example though. :-)
On 1/28/06, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sai Emrys wrote:
> > On 1/25/06, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>1. Thanks for trying to explain your notion of "non-linear", and how it
> >>differs from simply "not presented along a straight line". If I might
> >>summarise, I think your meaning of "non-linear" is what I would call
> >>"non-sequential". So we're really talking about basic internal structure
> >>here, rather than (primarily) about representation.
> >
> > Two good tests are branching factor and recursivity. If it can't to
> > both to arbitrary degrees, it's not what I'm talking about.
>
> What do you mean by "arbitrary degree?" If all symbols are the
> same size you're more-or-less restricted to six branches from a
> single symbol.
Only if they're also all square AND not allowed to overlap (or 'fill'
a square space, like all 'ideographic' languages I know do - e.g.
Japanese / Chinese kanji/hanzi always "take up" one square of space,
no matter what they do within it).
If you have different shape of their 'personal space' - e.g. hexagonal
(viz. maps used for wargames) - or if they have allowance for some
sort of fusional morphology, then I see no reason why it cannot in
fact be literally to any arbitrary degree of branching / recursion.
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:28:08 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: nonlinear fiction -- was: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing
(again)
On 1/28/06, John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would this be close to what you're after now?
> http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/carl/3b/cyoc.html
Hehe. Neat.
What bothers me about it though is that, other than very small
exceptions (e.g. the devil in the bottom middle), that's a
one-directional tree rather than a network.
And that it is in fact highly directional (down-right-wards).
It's getting closer though. It does have a little bit of
cleverness-via-arrangment going on - though again most of it is
primarily through straight-line-through humor / story in the usual way
(for any particular path you take). And it's not mutually compatible -
you can't actually multiple-traverse and have it still be coherent;
that's only possible as a meta thing about the storyline itself.
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:53:15 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
Sai Emrys wrote:
> On 1/28/06, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Sai Emrys wrote:
>>>On 1/25/06, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>1. Thanks for trying to explain your notion of "non-linear", and how it
>>>>differs from simply "not presented along a straight line". If I might
>>>>summarise, I think your meaning of "non-linear" is what I would call
>>>>"non-sequential". So we're really talking about basic internal structure
>>>>here, rather than (primarily) about representation.
>>>
>>>Two good tests are branching factor and recursivity. If it can't to
>>>both to arbitrary degrees, it's not what I'm talking about.
>>
>>What do you mean by "arbitrary degree?" If all symbols are the
>>same size you're more-or-less restricted to six branches from a
>>single symbol.
>
> Only if they're also all square AND not allowed to overlap (or 'fill'
> a square space, like all 'ideographic' languages I know do - e.g.
> Japanese / Chinese kanji/hanzi always "take up" one square of space,
> no matter what they do within it).
Uh, no. It doesn't matter whether they're square or allowed to
overlap or change in size. Two-dimensional space-filling permits
only six connections, and if you aren't talking about same-size
space-filling then your connections aren't arbitrary in the first
place.
> If you have different shape of their 'personal space' - e.g. hexagonal
> (viz. maps used for wargames) - or if they have allowance for some
> sort of fusional morphology, then I see no reason why it cannot in
> fact be literally to any arbitrary degree of branching / recursion.
You've failed to define what you mean by "arbitrary degree of
branching." Mathematically, space-filling two-dimensional
arrangements are limited to six connections. Even if there's a
higher order of symmetry (7-fold or eight-fold) there can still
be only six or fewer local connections. Greater connectivity can
be defined, but if it's defined it can't (by definition) be
arbitrary.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:40:17 +0000
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: nonlinear fiction -- was: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing
(again)
Jim Henry wrote:
> On 1/28/06, Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From an offlist email (w/ permission):
>>
>> On 1/25/06, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ......
>>> 12. Your explication of non-linear fiction immediately put me in mind of
>>> "interactive novels", which sometimes require a truly admirable degree of
>>> cleverness in branching and rejoining different plot threads to achieve
>>> given states of knowledge at various points.
>
>> If you are thinking of e.g. Choose Your Own Adventure books, those are
>> not nonlinear at all; they are merely branching (or 'customized')
>> linear. (Viz: the scene in /The Princess Bride/ where the kid corrects
>> the grandfather and says how the story is obviously *supposed* to go -
>> the story would still be linear either way, it's just a change in how
>> it turns out.)
>
> The earliest Choose Your Own Adventure
> novels were simple tree structures, but some later
> ones, and many of those in other series (e.g.,
> GrailQuest) were more complex networks.
>
>> Every one that I have seen is exclusively intended to have one path
>> *at a time* that is possible; attempting to keep track of the full
>> tree
>
> ...or network?
>
>> is extremely difficult. They definitely don't take advantage of
>> the actual structural net as an object in itself, which is what I was
>> imagining non-linear fiction (or poetry) would be like.
>
> Some hypertext fiction, as best as I can tell, is
> something like this: the various branchings of the
> network don't represent alternate ways the story
> can turn out, but alternate facets of the story
> one can attend to at any given time; one is encouraged
> to read much if not all of it and get a feel for how
> the bits connect. In theory the same structure
> could appear in a paper book with sections and
> branchings.
Worth mentioning here are text adventures (or "interactive fiction", as
people have taken to calling it to make it more "respectable"); and
within that genre are oddities like Andrew Plotkin's rather excellent
"Space Beneath the Window", where the "game", if you can call it that,
consists of reading the text and typing a word from it to focus on.
Depending on where you put your focus, the story goes in rather dramatic
directions.
K.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:04:15 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
On 1/28/06, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>What do you mean by "arbitrary degree?" If all symbols are the
> >>same size you're more-or-less restricted to six branches from a
> >>single symbol.
> >
> > Only if they're also all square AND not allowed to overlap (or 'fill'
> > a square space, like all 'ideographic' languages I know do - e.g.
> > Japanese / Chinese kanji/hanzi always "take up" one square of space,
> > no matter what they do within it).
>
> Uh, no. It doesn't matter whether they're square or allowed to
> overlap or change in size. Two-dimensional space-filling permits
> only six connections, and if you aren't talking about same-size
> space-filling then your connections aren't arbitrary in the first
> place.
I don't believe you. Prove it?
I can think of several simple counterexamples - hexagonal grids like
wargames, my drawing a circle with a bunch of lines coming out of it
to circles all around it (distance required increases with N, if
they're all equidistant; otherwise, it becomes like atomic shells);
etc.
> > If you have different shape of their 'personal space' - e.g. hexagonal
> > (viz. maps used for wargames) - or if they have allowance for some
> > sort of fusional morphology, then I see no reason why it cannot in
> > fact be literally to any arbitrary degree of branching / recursion.
>
> You've failed to define what you mean by "arbitrary degree of
> branching." Mathematically, space-filling two-dimensional
> arrangements are limited to six connections. Even if there's a
> higher order of symmetry (7-fold or eight-fold) there can still
> be only six or fewer local connections. Greater connectivity can
> be defined, but if it's defined it can't (by definition) be
> arbitrary.
I don't see how you arrive at that <=6 number.
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:25:43 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:07:41 -0500, Jefferson Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Draw a circle. What is the maximum number of circles that can be drawn
> touching that circle, or allowed to overlap to the same degree while
> being distinguishable. The answer is six. The same holds true for all
> regular shapes, no matter how intricate. Irregular shapes don't matter,
> because degree to which their connectivity is measured must be defined,
> and thus cannot be arbitrary. (This only applies to two-dimensional
> connectivity. The situation is different in three dimensions.)
I plan to test this by drawing a square regularly intersected by seven
equally-sized squares, but the hour is late, and my bed is calling quite
insistently. I will approach the problem in the morning, but doubtless you
will reveal some obvious rule which I have violated.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:16:16 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:04:15 -0500, Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You've failed to define what you mean by "arbitrary degree of
>> branching." Mathematically, space-filling two-dimensional
>> arrangements are limited to six connections. Even if there's a
>> higher order of symmetry (7-fold or eight-fold) there can still
>> be only six or fewer local connections. Greater connectivity can
>> be defined, but if it's defined it can't (by definition) be
>> arbitrary.
>
> I don't see how you arrive at that <=6 number.
I don't see how the number 6 has anything to do or not to do with the word
"arbitrary". Whether there is one connection or 18,000 that number is (by
defintition) defined. By taking such a broad view of what is not
arbitrary, I cannot see how any number could *be* arbitrary.
I suspect there's a conflict in semantic domains. We have a clash of the
actual meaning of the word arbitrary as something close to "defined at
will by some act of executive fiat, rather than subject to natural laws",
and what seems to be a piece of specialized technical jargon from some
arcane corner of mathematics that happens to have the same form as the
word we all know.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:58:37 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:04:15 -0500, Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> You've failed to define what you mean by "arbitrary degree of
>>> branching." Mathematically, space-filling two-dimensional
>>> arrangements are limited to six connections. Even if there's a
>>> higher order of symmetry (7-fold or eight-fold) there can still
>>> be only six or fewer local connections. Greater connectivity can
>>> be defined, but if it's defined it can't (by definition) be
>>> arbitrary.
>>
>> I don't see how you arrive at that <=6 number.
>
> I don't see how the number 6 has anything to do or not to do with the
> word "arbitrary". Whether there is one connection or 18,000 that number
> is (by defintition) defined. By taking such a broad view of what is
> not arbitrary, I cannot see how any number could *be* arbitrary.
Exactly, an arbitrary degree of branching would have to be able
to accept any (whole) number whether that be two or googleplex.
> I suspect there's a conflict in semantic domains. We have a clash of
> the actual meaning of the word arbitrary as something close to "defined
> at will by some act of executive fiat, rather than subject to natural
> laws", and what seems to be a piece of specialized technical jargon
> from some arcane corner of mathematics that happens to have the same
> form as the word we all know.
"Accepting any value determined by whim or impulse" is the most
common way "arbitrary" is used in mathematics, engineering, and
computer science. That's hardly an "arcane corner." (Though the
exact limits of the values involved vary between disciplines.)
However, the problem is not with any particular term, it's with
the whole phrase "arbitrary degree of branching." An "arbitrary
temperature" is any temperature at a particular location. An
"arbitrary degree of temperature" is meaningless since once you
have a degree it is no longer arbitrary. In just that manner,
"arbitrary degree of branching" is meaningless, which is why I
need for it to be defined.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:12:27 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:58:37 -0500, Jefferson Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, the problem is not with any particular term, it's with the
> whole phrase "arbitrary degree of branching." An "arbitrary
> temperature" is any temperature at a particular location. An "arbitrary
> degree of temperature" is meaningless since once you have a degree it is
> no longer arbitrary. In just that manner, "arbitrary degree of
> branching" is meaningless, which is why I need for it to be defined.
How about "a degree of branching subject to whim"? That agrees with your
stated definition of "arbitrary". The implication of the phrase is clear:
it seems possible to define (there's that word again, but without it, it's
all a singularity) a writing system where any number of branches may be
possible for some given grapheme. I don't know where this space-filling
stuff came from, to be honest. I rather feel it may be some form of boojum.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:14:06 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: nonlinear fiction -- was: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing
(again)
On 1/28/06, Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Worth mentioning here are text adventures (or "interactive fiction", as
> people have taken to calling it to make it more "respectable"); and
> within that genre are oddities like Andrew Plotkin's rather excellent
> "Space Beneath the Window", where the "game", if you can call it that,
> consists of reading the text and typing a word from it to focus on.
> Depending on where you put your focus, the story goes in rather dramatic
> directions.
Neat. I haven't managed to get it past the "... shall we go" scene though. :-/
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:23:04 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
Arbitrary in my use: any node can be connected to any number of other
nodes. (assuming it's on the node-and-connection sort of style, which
it need not be if it has a fusional morphology)
I still don't see how you can say it's 6. Could you please show me the math?
I'm not sure about cases where 'neighbors' are directly touching, but
it's obviously false if they can be simply connected by lines. E.g.:
[paste this into a notepad w/ an equal-width font]
1 2 3
\|/
4-O-5
/|\
6 7 8
... and that's not even using multiple 'layers', or variable length
connecting lines, branching ones, or anything like that.
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:25:03 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
Actually, no - simpler:
123
4O5
678
There, you have 8 connections, all directly touching the central
character, all of the same size.
- Sai
On 1/29/06, Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arbitrary in my use: any node can be connected to any number of other
> nodes. (assuming it's on the node-and-connection sort of style, which
> it need not be if it has a fusional morphology)
>
> I still don't see how you can say it's 6. Could you please show me the math?
>
> I'm not sure about cases where 'neighbors' are directly touching, but
> it's obviously false if they can be simply connected by lines. E.g.:
>
> [paste this into a notepad w/ an equal-width font]
>
> 1 2 3
> \|/
> 4-O-5
> /|\
> 6 7 8
>
> ... and that's not even using multiple 'layers', or variable length
> connecting lines, branching ones, or anything like that.
>
> - Sai
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:07:41 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
Sai Emrys wrote:
> On 1/28/06, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>What do you mean by "arbitrary degree?" If all symbols are the
>>>>same size you're more-or-less restricted to six branches from a
>>>>single symbol.
You have yet to even try to explain what you mean by "arbitrary
degree of branching." If you don't bother to try to explain what
you mean I can only assume that you're babbling to hear yourself
babble. I won't be responding if you can't be bothered to even
begin an attempt to explain yourself.
>>>Only if they're also all square AND not allowed to overlap (or 'fill'
>>>a square space, like all 'ideographic' languages I know do - e.g.
>>>Japanese / Chinese kanji/hanzi always "take up" one square of space,
>>>no matter what they do within it).
>>
>>Uh, no. It doesn't matter whether they're square or allowed to
>>overlap or change in size. Two-dimensional space-filling permits
>>only six connections, and if you aren't talking about same-size
>>space-filling then your connections aren't arbitrary in the first
>>place.
>
> I don't believe you. Prove it?
If your shapes aren't same-size their dimensions must be defined,
and hence the relations involved are not arbitrary. If a pattern
isn't space-filling then connections between elements must be
defined by something outside the elements and the space they
occupy, such definitions cannot be arbitrary. These are some of
the basic _definitions_ of map theory. (That's mathematical map
theory, not cartography.)
> I can think of several simple counterexamples - hexagonal grids like
> wargames,
Limited to six connections.
> my drawing a circle with a bunch of lines coming out of it
> to circles all around it
Which represent defined branches and not arbitrary ones.
> (distance required increases with N, if
> they're all equidistant; otherwise, it becomes like atomic shells);
> etc.
So what's an "arbitrary degree of branching"?
>>>If you have different shape of their 'personal space' - e.g. hexagonal
>>>(viz. maps used for wargames) - or if they have allowance for some
>>>sort of fusional morphology, then I see no reason why it cannot in
>>>fact be literally to any arbitrary degree of branching / recursion.
>>
>>You've failed to define what you mean by "arbitrary degree of
>>branching." Mathematically, space-filling two-dimensional
>>arrangements are limited to six connections. Even if there's a
>>higher order of symmetry (7-fold or eight-fold) there can still
>>be only six or fewer local connections. Greater connectivity can
>>be defined, but if it's defined it can't (by definition) be
>>arbitrary.
>
> I don't see how you arrive at that <=6 number.
Draw a circle. What is the maximum number of circles that can be
drawn touching that circle, or allowed to overlap to the same
degree while being distinguishable. The answer is six. The same
holds true for all regular shapes, no matter how intricate.
Irregular shapes don't matter, because degree to which their
connectivity is measured must be defined, and thus cannot be
arbitrary. (This only applies to two-dimensional connectivity.
The situation is different in three dimensions.)
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:13:38 -0500
From: Nokta Kanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: nonlinear fiction -- was: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing
(again)
It's "Space Under the Window"... you'll have trouble turning up a link if
you search "beneath".
--Noktakanto
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
