Posted by Kazper at 11:30am Dec 23 '06Your desire for clarity and ease of... [analyzation] may outweigh your desire for brevity, in which case you must try to determine the effects of a brevity scheme and see if they interfere with your greater desire.
Some brevity schemes can require more use of memory and more foresight. If you cannot forsee good enough you can create ambiguity. If you do not have to worry about what follows and only about what currently is... it's better, anything can follow in this case...
Clarity can equal verbosity and brevity can equal... [unclarity].
I think though that total clarity may be totally unworkable. So, no matter how clear a language may seem to be it should be employing some brevity schemes.
If your [morphological] rules inform you that the allowable combinations of consonants and vowels, forming syllables in words and words and starting from right to left, is CV, CVC and VC then you do not have to indicate, in written language, a break between these allowable combinations if you can remember which phonemes/graphemes are C's and V's and what the allowable combinations are... So, if your syntax rules inform you that a conjunction placed after x1 and before x2 joins x2 with x3 because x1 and x2 can't join and because x2 is [this type of word] and x3 is [that type of word] and... (lol.) then you don't need to indicate all that with the conjunction. Besides, in this case one would need to know all these rules to then know which conjunction to use... Ah!
... If context can inform you of the rules then any additional indication is a redundancy...
If your language demands that you have to think about what you are going to convey before you convey it so that you can unambiguously, through the use of correct labelling and syntax and [whatever], convey... that should be a good thing... though afterthoughts could cause a problem...
Ahhh! When I do a thing for brevity I then start to question why I don't do this other thing that I see that has no effects that I see that cause ambiguity for brevity. Then I think I shouldn't do this and instead do it a longer way so that things are more the same. And then I see that these longer ways aren't as long as they could be... Ah! I think it all comes down to what I want for whatever reason. So, it may not be: "Brevity is the soul of language." but: 'Different amounts of brevity is the soul of language.' I can see better how languages can get all fuckin' chaotic and how a whole bunch of vocabulary can be necessary to explain all the different things that can be going on.
This isn't necessarily the fault of the relative, especially since some are more reclusive but: relatives can really make one feel uncomfortable in their own home.
You know what I've discovered (and like always then forget, then remember- then forget!...) I can be happy using something if I understand it, no matter how... fucked up I think it is. So, basically, what I'm saying is, I really don't care how irregular a language may be if I understand how it is working and that I'm very happy when I understand. I gotta remember this because the potential consequences are significant: a better ability to maintain discipline and learn and understand from others. To learn and understand many things.
If understanding a thing brings you pleasure then understanding many things will bring you many pleasures.
Just because I make something a little more brief doesn't mean I then have to make it even a little more brief.
"Numbers" is an inspiring show. It makes me wanna learn all that math. Though still ultimately so that I can have my own math.
You can be too critical of others who are being too critical of others.
It's not unforgiveable for one to be unwilling to learn simply because there is so much to learn. One has to discover what they desire to learn and if there is many things one desires to learn it is likely that one will have to choose between them and be unwilling to learn some of them... to be better able to learn the others.
I think to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to deny that it is the source of all information... of all inspiration. I think the Holy Spirit is the holographic information field referred to in Ervin Laszlo's "Science and the Akashic Field An Integral Theory of Everything".
"God's Spirit was over the face of the waters." The holographic information is recorded above...
Also, maybe the word "Spirit" was chosen because what do we think of when we think of a spirit...? A kind of ghostly figure... a kind of holographic figure... :::( shrugs::
I gotta read it again and understand more because it's got me glimpsin' some cool shit.
... Also, I think God would be the metaverse, the waters...
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Some brevity schemes can require more use of memory and more foresight. If you cannot forsee good enough you can create ambiguity. If you do not have to worry about what follows and only about what currently is... it's better, anything can follow in this case...
Clarity can equal verbosity and brevity can equal... [unclarity].
I think though that total clarity may be totally unworkable. So, no matter how clear a language may seem to be it should be employing some brevity schemes.
If your [morphological] rules inform you that the allowable combinations of consonants and vowels, forming syllables in words and words and starting from right to left, is CV, CVC and VC then you do not have to indicate, in written language, a break between these allowable combinations if you can remember which phonemes/graphemes are C's and V's and what the allowable combinations are... So, if your syntax rules inform you that a conjunction placed after x1 and before x2 joins x2 with x3 because x1 and x2 can't join and because x2 is [this type of word] and x3 is [that type of word] and... (lol.) then you don't need to indicate all that with the conjunction. Besides, in this case one would need to know all these rules to then know which conjunction to use... Ah!
... If context can inform you of the rules then any additional indication is a redundancy...
If your language demands that you have to think about what you are going to convey before you convey it so that you can unambiguously, through the use of correct labelling and syntax and [whatever], convey... that should be a good thing... though afterthoughts could cause a problem...
Ahhh! When I do a thing for brevity I then start to question why I don't do this other thing that I see that has no effects that I see that cause ambiguity for brevity. Then I think I shouldn't do this and instead do it a longer way so that things are more the same. And then I see that these longer ways aren't as long as they could be... Ah! I think it all comes down to what I want for whatever reason. So, it may not be: "Brevity is the soul of language." but: 'Different amounts of brevity is the soul of language.' I can see better how languages can get all fuckin' chaotic and how a whole bunch of vocabulary can be necessary to explain all the different things that can be going on.
This isn't necessarily the fault of the relative, especially since some are more reclusive but: relatives can really make one feel uncomfortable in their own home.
You know what I've discovered (and like always then forget, then remember- then forget!...) I can be happy using something if I understand it, no matter how... fucked up I think it is. So, basically, what I'm saying is, I really don't care how irregular a language may be if I understand how it is working and that I'm very happy when I understand. I gotta remember this because the potential consequences are significant: a better ability to maintain discipline and learn and understand from others. To learn and understand many things.
If understanding a thing brings you pleasure then understanding many things will bring you many pleasures.
Just because I make something a little more brief doesn't mean I then have to make it even a little more brief.
"Numbers" is an inspiring show. It makes me wanna learn all that math. Though still ultimately so that I can have my own math.
You can be too critical of others who are being too critical of others.
It's not unforgiveable for one to be unwilling to learn simply because there is so much to learn. One has to discover what they desire to learn and if there is many things one desires to learn it is likely that one will have to choose between them and be unwilling to learn some of them... to be better able to learn the others.
I think to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to deny that it is the source of all information... of all inspiration. I think the Holy Spirit is the holographic information field referred to in Ervin Laszlo's "Science and the Akashic Field An Integral Theory of Everything".
"God's Spirit was over the face of the waters." The holographic information is recorded above...
Also, maybe the word "Spirit" was chosen because what do we think of when we think of a spirit...? A kind of ghostly figure... a kind of holographic figure... :::( shrugs::
I gotta read it again and understand more because it's got me glimpsin' some cool shit.
... Also, I think God would be the metaverse, the waters...
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Ruminations. - Kazper