[aebtebeten]

Rhetoric (Ῥητορική?) in general offers many "signposting" oral structures so that one may (in a 1-D temporally streamed medium) reliably communicate some of the nested arboreal complexities which writing (somewhat 2D, and amenable to re-reading) tends to communicate more clearly.

[nubg]

How is writing 2d, just because you can't fit a given text on a piece of paper and need to text wrap? That doesn't make it 2d.

[likelyMostYes]

> reliably communicate some of the nested arboreal complexities

Text/Subtext, text/'direct' and implied meaning, maybe?

I don't think 2D refers to conventional dimensions but to a dimensional structure implicit to text as an object made of objects, nested and nesting all the way up and down.

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/weirdalyankovic/thebrainsong...

[bdr]

I think they mean that, with writing, it’s easier to parse complex syntax trees. Think fractal dimension and finite vs stack memory.

[thechao]

Weird. I was just having a similar discussion with my colleagues regarding coding style. Anyways, I absolutely view text (code more than prose; but poesy definitely has this!) to be 2D. There is both per-line and interline structure that good formatting surfaces; it simplifies long range reasoning about invariants.

I mean... the whole field of typographic ad copy is about 2D writing?