[samograd]

My take on hoon is to use[2] the alphabetic names of the line noise operators to create words and use them to make a non-symbolic (if you take alphanumeric characters as non-symbolic) functional, executable conlang[3].

To me it's what Liebniz was looking for[1], but with funny looking words that make no sense to the uninitiated, which use the 'linguistic nodules' that cgyarvin is hoping to utilize, without the symbolic name decoding that using line noise requires (if you use the names in [2] rather than the line noise symbols).

I personally think hoon looks like absolute brilliance, but I can't say yet that I've had the pleasure to write anything in it, which is the best thing to take that shiny feeling away by actually trying to use it.

But as art, I think it's perfect.

[1] http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives/.http/hypermail/histori...

[2] As follows from http://www.urbit.org/2013/08/22/Chapter-4-syntax.html:

    ace  space      gal  <          per  )
    bar  |          gar  >          sel  [
    bas  \          hax  #          sem  ;
    buc  $          hep  -          ser  ]
    cab  _          kel  {          sig  ~
    cen  %          ker  }          soq  '
    col  :          ket  ^          tar  *
    com  ,          lus  +          tec  `
    doq  "          pam  &          tis  =
    dot  .          pat  @          wut  ?
    fas  /          pel  (          zap  !

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language

[samatman]

The numerous minor nitpicks I have with this scheme are a big part of what keeps me coming back to Urbit. The basic idea is so right-on that I can't help focusing on things like this: given that 2 billion people conflate "1" and "r", how on Urth did he settle on using those as primary distinguishments for every. single. brace. pair. O right, left and right.

Similarly, every c in that scheme makes me kringe. Unless those are "chab", "chen", "chol", "chom", "butch" etc. Which, affricates, meh.

This is of course the complement of damning with faint praise.