In a message dated 12/4/2001 6:05:56 PM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes:In the end, the quickness of expressions determines what gets Not really. At most it would be that what is most shortly expressed gets said most, but even that is not quite right -- and is wrong way 'round. <Viewed numerically, a typical phonology can be thought of as a mixed base number perhaps> As can anything with a bit of ingenuity. What is the point here? <I think it will differentiate itself when you start looking at things that are just too cumbursome that they are never expressed in a human language. For example, in a binary language it's easy to imbed something like a bitmap to directly describe a flat picture (or indeed any flat bit string, like a DSD sound).> Well, now we have gone beyond language to including the thing itself (yes, I know that the picture, nor the jpeg (or whatever) of the picture is not strictly the thing itself but it fails to be in a rather different way that a linguistic reference or a linguistic description fail to be -- and a way closer to the thing). I don't mind illustrated text, but I think calling the illustration a part of the text is pushing terminology a bit too far. |