From owner-wryting-l@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA Sun Apr 6 18:20:26 2003 From paragram Sun Apr 6 18:20:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: from mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.1.48] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.0) for paragram@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 06 Apr 2003 18:20:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by Mail.ZEDAT.FU-Berlin.DE (Smail3.2.0.98) from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (209.119.0.109) with esmtp id ; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 17:17:12 +0200 (MEST) Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <3.00966FAB@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; 6 Apr 2003 11:17:10 -0400 Received: from LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA by LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 426321 for WRYTING-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:16:49 -0400 Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.99] EHLO imo-r03.mx.aol.com ident: TIMEDOUT [port 64624]) by lserv2.ns.utoronto.ca with ESMTP id <931108-21571>; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:16:40 -0400 Received: from Towntrick@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id 9.94.3652e9a8 (30950) for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:16:22 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_94.3652e9a8.2bc19ec6_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 534 X-Orcpt: rfc822;WRYTING-L@listserv.utoronto.ca Message-ID: <94.3652e9a8.2bc19ec6@aol.com> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:16:22 EDT Reply-To: "WRYTING-L : Writing and Theory across Disciplines" Sender: "WRYTING-L : Writing and Theory across Disciplines" From: Towntrick@AOL.COM Subject: Re: _DAx_ To: WRYTING-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA Precedence: list X-UIDL: 'm5"!2dF!!Cd["!bP\!! compatibility issues. a while ago I started but didn't finish a project which aimed at an explicit set of rules to let certain known words co-exist in new words but not other known words. so for example, there would be a set of signs to assert on the word b-l-in-king the words 'blinking' 'link' 'linking' 'in' 'king' and 'in king'; but not 'blink' or 'inking' or 'link in' (even though they're obviously there in another way). or to assert a different set of words and exclude a different set of words. well, it got boring & cumbersome. but I wonder, blinking into this word slaughter orgy surgery, how you've chosen among [] <> . : + _ ||, what sorts of systematism are in place, what sorts of struggles. 'bea[s]ts' seems to have a different logic to it than m[h]ounds. seems like there are semantic as well as musical modes in play . . . 'So you have no frame of reference, Donny. You're like a child who wanders in in the middle of a movie and wants to know--' (TBL ) love, Jow