I love the way it teaches you, but the other comments are correct. It doesn't really make sense to optimize for screen space like this. However, the teaching style along with a symbol alphabet that IS trying to solve for better legibility (without necessarily any allegiance to dyslexic fonts), could be pretty interesting. In middle school when bored once I made my own symbolic alphabet, I found it really is extremely…
This was my favourite aspect of dotsies: that words began to have familiar shapes. I stopped needing to parse certain words because their shape was so unique and memorable. At the same time it would be interesting to see it implemented based on letter frequency rather than order in the alphabet. It was great fun to read!
Dotsies (2012)
111–120 of 204 posts
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#112Problems that I immediately see with the approach: * No baseline or other orienting structure, so vertical shifts easily change meaning ("ab" turns to "bc"), same for rotations. * No redundancy to allow for recognizing incomplete / garbled / damaged letters. Both features are prominent in any machine-readable encoding (like bar codes or QR codes), and are relatively easy to find in any human script. The idea behind m…
There's also Shavian and Quikscript for English, which handle the language phonetically. I think it's a big miss for any new writing system to keep a language with 38 or so sounds limited to 26 letters. Not to mention other languages that might want to use it.
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to post some comment about how the comments here were all overly negative for what was obviously just someone having fun. Then I read the comments in 2012. Jesus Christ. In any case, it's sad to me how when people on HN see someone having a bit of fun or messing around, their first instinct is to knock it down.
The website is not presenting this as just having fun, but rather making the strong claim that it is actually better than the writing system we've been using. Making such very strong claims ("I've come up with something better than what civilization has produced thus far...") naturally invites debate, especially when they seem implausible on their face and aren't backed up by a very solid argument. There would be a l…
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#114The first thing I thought of was Marain, from The Culture novels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture : “Designed to be represented either in binary or symbol-written form, Marain is also regarded as an aesthetically pleasing language by the Culture. The symbols of the Marain alphabet can be displayed in three-by-three grids of binary (yes/no, black/white) dots and thus correspond to nine-bit wide binary numbers…
Came here to say the same thing. Interesting to see that someone has (independently?) had the same sort of idea.
Here are some examples of Marain symbols designed by Iain M. Banks:
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
The website is not presenting this as just having fun, but rather making the strong claim that it is actually better than the writing system we've been using. Making such very strong claims ("I've come up with something better than what civilization has produced thus far...") naturally invites debate, especially when they seem implausible on their face and aren't backed up by a very solid argument. There would be a l…
I’m not seeing your quote on the page, and I think that drives my point home: you have created a narrative for the post that doesn’t exist. I mean, come on. They’re called “dotsies”! Does that sound like the name of a font designed to replace ours, by someone who honestly thinks they’ve advanced civilization? Or does it sound like someone having fun?
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#116Previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14825571 (2017, 22 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3601687 (2012, 98 comments)
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#117Very interesting. It's definitely more compact but I would challenge the more readable claim. If you think about how the human vision system is constructed (similar to convnets in deep learning), the brain uses a hierarchy of constructs like circles, lines, corners, etc. Recognizing letters requires the triggering of multiple layers of these constructs. A dot, and another dot 1 pixel higher or lower is easy to get co…
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#118Do you think "Fußgängerübergänge" can be read as "Fussgangerubergange" or "zażółć" as "zazolc"? (German and Polish respectively)
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#119There are tons of ways to describe the sounds that a human mouth can make, and you can find very detailed nomenclature about it but generally it is useful to think of a spoken language as consisting of a set of phonemes, which are fundamental sounds. I looked at a list of the most common phonemes and just decided to use the top 20 in order to make the pronunciation and recognition of all the sounds of this new language as easy as possible. Between all the languages of the world, there is considerably more overlap of some sounds than others, so I believe it’s useful to use the most overlapped ones.
Most languages consist of open phonemes and closed phonemes. Most languages include words that end on a closed sound like the word “stop.” Notice that actually saying this word without making an open sound and the closed “p” sound is impossible. In reality the word sounds like “stop-ah” because of the physics of the mouth. In this new language, all words start with a closed sound and end with an open sound, for example “gah” “dah” “dee” “nee” and so on.
If you take a bunch of common closed sounds and open sounds, and have none that sound similar to the others in any way (distinctive sounds are necessary for easy learning and understanding by learners because after a certain age, discriminating between similar sounding sounds is impossible.) then you have a list that can create around 40 or 400 “base combinations” of one closed sound and one open sound, like the examples above. I can’t remeber the exact number but I have it all written out somewhere. Limiting words to 20 or 30 combinations of these base combinations, you have a word space that is larger than a human can memorize probably, even after cutting out all the bad combinations like “dee-dee-dee-dee-dee.” So in the end you have words that might look like “nah-kah-too-nigh.” You give up compactness compared to English but gain advantages in other areas. Namely clarity and truer correlation between how a word is spelled and pronounced which is key for learning a new language. Also it’s impossible to have something like two words that sound the same like “two” and “too.”
The language would cross of several base combinations as I mentioned earlier. These singletons “dee” “dah” “nee” and so on, would not have any meaning. The next level up, two of these combinations together like “dee-nee” or “too-goo” would have meanings that are fundamental and common and would act as root words to form other higher level words just like in English with Latin and Greek. So for example the root word “dee-soo” means to finish, to terminate, to end. There is a joke in there by the way. And the root word “vigh-tah” might mean life, animation or prosperity. So the word “dee-soo-vigh-tah” might mean death. And so on. I think the root word system is very good in English and doing it very deliberately in a new language would be good.
Often in English we make up words with other words. Or we start to use two words, a phrase, as it’s own word. This would be formalized into this new language with vocal and written markers to insert in between individual words that when spliced together form a good word for some new thing. This might act both as a staging tool for new concepts before they are formally introduced into the dictionary but also a better way of improvising combinations on the spot to meet strange or funny one-off combinations.
Unlike thai and a few other languages, written words have delimiters (!) and unlike English, it isn’t an empty space that can easily be interpreted incorrectly.
The alphabet would consist of very carefully designed letters, each one representing one of the aforementioned base sounds. Each letter would be designed so as to be very difficult to write or read in a way that causes it to be mistaken for another letter. In English we cross our zeros to not confuse them with The letter O. This language would effectively do that in advance for all letters.
Still haven’t thought of what conjugation method would be best. Or other higher level stuff.
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#120[Sad that this tops HN.]