Date:         Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:16:22 EDT
From: Towntrick@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: _DAx_
To: WRYTING-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA



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