Re: Ideograms (was: Spiral symbol)
I feel that it would be helpful if there were symbols that could be used in a non-language-specific manner for phrases such as Hello and Thank you and Best regards, and so on. Most ideographs in use are pictographs, for obvious reasons. But it would be nice indeed to have ideograms for “thanks”, “please”, “yes”, “no”, “perhaps” – all those common notions which cannot be de-*picted* in the true sense of the word. I have been thinking about trying to produce some designs for such ideograms. I am thinking that each of the designs should be the same overall width as its height, with the height being the same as the height of a lowercase h so that the designs can be used intermixed with text. There is a matter on which I seek discussion please. Bearing in mind that the designs could be used intermixed with text, that implies that sometimes the text could be left to right text and that sometimes the text could be right to left text. So how should the designs be designed? Should the designs be symmetrical, such that displayed on its own there is no indication as to whether a design is from left to right or from right to left? Or, should the designs be not symmetrical, with two versions for each design: one such that displayed on its own there is indication that the design is from left to right and the other such that displayed on its own there is indication that the design is from right to left? Or, should there be three versions for each design? With advanced font technology, maybe the particular glyph design that is displayed could be automated depending upon the direction of the text nearby? The use of variation selectors could perhaps mean that both monochrome and colourful versions for each design could be used. William Overington 8 February 2013
Re: Ideograms (was: Spiral symbol)
Thank you for your comments. Here are some pictographs displayed well in Google street view. http://maps.google.com/?ll=47.279364,0.421498spn=0.001321,0.002248t=mz=18layer=ccbll=47.279429,0.420475panoid=Q_-nApHRA1Aq9IN4YPRzGQcbp=12,175.95,,0,4.88 Zooming-in three times is possible. One can only move around in Google street view when the display is not zoomed-in, so I have posted a not zoomed-in link in case some readers choose to enjoy moving around in the simulation. There is a Full screen logo just to the left of the x in the top right corner of the picture. To get back from full screen, please press the Esc key. One could click the x in the top right corner of the picture so as to get to the map, but each reader might perhaps consider first please whether he or she would rather just explore in the simulation before looking at the map. William Overington 30 January 2013
Re: Ideograms (was: Spiral symbol)
On 2013年1月30日, at 上午4:50, Andreas Stötzner a...@signographie.de wrote: Most ideographs in use are pictographs, for obvious reasons. But it would be nice indeed to have ideograms for “thanks”, 謝 “please”, 請 “yes”, 對 “no”, 不 “perhaps” 許 – all those common notions which cannot be de-*picted* in the true sense of the word. I'm not being entirely snarky here. The whole reason why the term ideograph got attached to Chinese characters in the first place is that they can convey the same meaning while representing different words in different languages. Chinese writing was one of the inspirations for Leibniz' Characteristica universalis, for example. Personally, I think that extensive reliance on ideographs for communication is a bad idea. Again, Chinese illustrates this. The grammars of Chinese and Japanese are so very different that although hanzi are perfectly adequate for the writing of a large number of Sinitic languages, they are completely inadquate for Japanese. Ideographs are fine for some short, simple messages (The lady's room lieth behind yon door), but not for actually expressing *language*. And, in any event, if you *really* want non-pictographic ways of conveying abstract ideas, most of the work has been already done for you.
Re: Ideograms (was: Spiral symbol)
A very accessible book on all this is The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy by John De Francis, published in 1984 by University of Hawaii Press. There is a brief synopsis on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chinese_Language:_Fact_and_Fantasy - Tim On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:46 PM, John H. Jenkins jenk...@apple.com wrote: On 2013年1月30日, at 上午4:50, Andreas Stötzner a...@signographie.de wrote: Most ideographs in use are pictographs, for obvious reasons. But it would be nice indeed to have ideograms for “thanks”, 謝 “please”, 請 “yes”, 對 “no”, 不 “perhaps” 許 – all those common notions which cannot be de-*picted* in the true sense of the word. I'm not being entirely snarky here. The whole reason why the term ideograph got attached to Chinese characters in the first place is that they can convey the same meaning while representing different words in different languages. Chinese writing was one of the inspirations for Leibniz' Characteristica universalis, for example. Personally, I think that extensive reliance on ideographs for communication is a bad idea. Again, Chinese illustrates this. The grammars of Chinese and Japanese are so very different that although hanzi are perfectly adequate for the writing of a large number of Sinitic languages, they are completely inadquate for Japanese. Ideographs are fine for some short, simple messages (The lady's room lieth behind yon door), but not for actually expressing *language*. And, in any event, if you *really* want non-pictographic ways of conveying abstract ideas, most of the work has been already done for you.
