5 ms·

Boustrophedon Order

24 points by hardy263 16y ago

mwerty 16y ago
maybe an effective way to parallelize writes?
mikeknoop 16y ago
According to the Wikipedia image, the "backwards" row (from right to left) was not only written from right-to-left, but the characters were also inversed horizontally (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Boustrophedon.svg/400px-Boustrophedon.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Bou...) I can understand the mentality behind alternating rows, especially on non-uniform surfaces but inversing the characters seems like more effort than what it's worth. Can anyone explain this further?
- rflrob 16y ago
  If niching else, it seems like changing directions would make it pretty clear which way a given line is meant to be read (unless it contains a hugely unlikely proportion of mirror-symmetric characters like A, O, M, &c.)
  - mfukar 16y ago
    I can see that being true; most ancient Greek alphabet letters present a certain symmetry. What I've found more interesting is that there are variations of this kind of writing where the first line/verse was written from right to left, where the next two lines/verses were written from left to right.
  - mahmud 16y ago
    Indeed, because otherwise, erasing a line, specially from the top or bottom would have caused major confusion and wholesale change in meaning.
- Luc 16y ago
  I am guessing here: once we are proficient at reading we start recognising word shapes, not letters. In the mirrored writing the word shape as a whole does not change - it's just mirrored, which makes it easier to recognise than if the letters are reversed. Here's the text from your link. Which is easier to read, this or the PNG? 'This example of boustrophedon text eht rof yllacificeps nettirw saw Wikipedia article on this ox turning txet htiw llaw a gnirevoc fo dohtem in ancient Greece and elsewhere.'
- rfreytag 16y ago
  I recall that the Moai (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Moai https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Moai) were transported horizontally quite a ways from their quarry to their pediments. >IF< the inscriptions are on these prone stones then perhaps it was so that two stone carvers could carve two lines simultaneously thereby halving the time to complete their work. By inverting the second line the second carver doesn't have to write upside down. The carvers just face each other while squatting on the stone's face and start at opposite sides of the face working past each other. If this style of inscription occurs frequently on stone surfaces not likely to be transported then this theory is unlikely. EDIT: answering the reply below - the above technique can be applied to any number of lines. As in pipeline processing for vector computers (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pipeline_%28software%29 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pipeline_%28s...) the last operations do not fully utilize the available capacity of the system. In the case of inscribing in stone - the last line only needs the labor of one carver. As for frustrating - I'd find carving in stone quite tedious in any case. I may still be mistaken but I don't think it's for the reasons you gave.
  - mfukar 16y ago
    That's not practical at all. It could be applied only for an odd number of lines, if they even happened to know in advance how many lines it'd take. Also, it'd be amazingly frustrating: imagine having to "switch" your focus from the start of the text to the end, and then a little further from the start, and then a little further from the end... I don't think our ancestors were masochists or dumb, really.
    - gwern 16y ago
      > It could be applied only for an odd number of lines, if they even happened to know in advance how many lines it'd take. I think when you are working in stone, you have your text prepared in advance. (But what do I know? Just the other day, I took a week and dashed down my grocery list on some granite. Turned out to be an even number of lines.)
      - 16y ago
motters 16y ago
I'm not surprised that this method of writing didn't catch on, since it could be quite confusing. It would tend to minimize saccade distances when reading, but the down side is that you need to memorize 2N characters (normal and mirrored versions) plus you also need to memorize which is the current reading direction.
philologist 16y ago
Remember that word spacing was invented only in the 12th century. Ifyoutrytoreadseverallinesoftextwrittenlikethis, you'll quickly find that you lose track of where you are in the text fairly often. That's why Boustrophedon was invented and used, and that's why it became definitely obsolete after word spacing was invented. You can read more about this in Paul Saenger's and Frances Yates' books.

24 points by hardy263 16y ago

maybe an effective way to parallelize writes?

According to the Wikipedia image, the "backwards" row (from right to left) was not only written from right-to-left, but the characters were also inversed horizontally (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Boustrophedon.svg/400px-Boustrophedon.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Bou...) I can understand the mentality behind alternating rows, especially on non-uniform surfaces but inversing the characters seems like more effort than what it's worth. Can anyone explain this further?

rflrob 16y ago
If niching else, it seems like changing directions would make it pretty clear which way a given line is meant to be read (unless it contains a hugely unlikely proportion of mirror-symmetric characters like A, O, M, &c.)
- mfukar 16y ago
  I can see that being true; most ancient Greek alphabet letters present a certain symmetry. What I've found more interesting is that there are variations of this kind of writing where the first line/verse was written from right to left, where the next two lines/verses were written from left to right.
- mahmud 16y ago
  Indeed, because otherwise, erasing a line, specially from the top or bottom would have caused major confusion and wholesale change in meaning.
Luc 16y ago
I am guessing here: once we are proficient at reading we start recognising word shapes, not letters. In the mirrored writing the word shape as a whole does not change - it's just mirrored, which makes it easier to recognise than if the letters are reversed. Here's the text from your link. Which is easier to read, this or the PNG? 'This example of boustrophedon text eht rof yllacificeps nettirw saw Wikipedia article on this ox turning txet htiw llaw a gnirevoc fo dohtem in ancient Greece and elsewhere.'
rfreytag 16y ago
I recall that the Moai (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Moai https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Moai) were transported horizontally quite a ways from their quarry to their pediments. >IF< the inscriptions are on these prone stones then perhaps it was so that two stone carvers could carve two lines simultaneously thereby halving the time to complete their work. By inverting the second line the second carver doesn't have to write upside down. The carvers just face each other while squatting on the stone's face and start at opposite sides of the face working past each other. If this style of inscription occurs frequently on stone surfaces not likely to be transported then this theory is unlikely. EDIT: answering the reply below - the above technique can be applied to any number of lines. As in pipeline processing for vector computers (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pipeline_%28software%29 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pipeline_%28s...) the last operations do not fully utilize the available capacity of the system. In the case of inscribing in stone - the last line only needs the labor of one carver. As for frustrating - I'd find carving in stone quite tedious in any case. I may still be mistaken but I don't think it's for the reasons you gave.
- mfukar 16y ago
  That's not practical at all. It could be applied only for an odd number of lines, if they even happened to know in advance how many lines it'd take. Also, it'd be amazingly frustrating: imagine having to "switch" your focus from the start of the text to the end, and then a little further from the start, and then a little further from the end... I don't think our ancestors were masochists or dumb, really.
  - gwern 16y ago
    > It could be applied only for an odd number of lines, if they even happened to know in advance how many lines it'd take. I think when you are working in stone, you have your text prepared in advance. (But what do I know? Just the other day, I took a week and dashed down my grocery list on some granite. Turned out to be an even number of lines.)
    - 16y ago

motters 16y ago

I'm not surprised that this method of writing didn't catch on, since it could be quite confusing. It would tend to minimize saccade distances when reading, but the down side is that you need to memorize 2N characters (normal and mirrored versions) plus you also need to memorize which is the current reading direction.

philologist 16y ago

Remember that word spacing was invented only in the 12th century. Ifyoutrytoreadseverallinesoftextwrittenlikethis, you'll quickly find that you lose track of where you are in the text fairly often. That's why Boustrophedon was invented and used, and that's why it became definitely obsolete after word spacing was invented. You can read more about this in Paul Saenger's and Frances Yates' books.