/lit/ - Literature

>>7856104
if u got 5 mil and the willingness there's like a dozen ways to figure out who i am irl from these insane threads i do. Figure it out.

>>7856121
when I read it in ur post i assumed it was listed as 2 as well, [it was night] [again]
>that presentation was back from before my glossary was nested
>don't hate me for it

and yes, you have to be able to discern what the unit is doing and the same words might do different things depending on the ones around them. there are mixed narremes and a discrete system that is evident from the way I box phrases in books. It shows a level of distribution the raw numbers dont. This is the first handful of narremes from tonight's gig for example.
[1.1.1] [1.2] [[[3.2] 2.2] 2.4.3] [3.2] [[3.2.3.1] 2.4] [3.2 [3.2.3] 3.2] [[2.2] 2.3] [4.8.1] [3.2] 2.2/.2.2.5] 3.2.1] [3.2.1] [3.2.1] [[4.6.3] 1.1.1] [[2.3.1] 2.2] 2.4] 2.4] 3.2.3][2.3.1]

Sup. So, I figured out a thing about words and I want to give it away to anyone that will listen. If you're interested in learning a method of analysis that you can use to establish authorial style at the level of individual creative choice and thus be able to spot an author's particular presence in a document then stick around.

The topic of discussion is a thing called narramemes, a topic of semiotics and in particular the role of an author in constructing a narrative (I focused on narratives since I'm trying to be a better writer and am super autistic, but technically it is in any document that is constructed in a creative way.)

Replies are cool, it'd be nice to know people are reading but I'm also going to type the whole lesson even if I'm talking to an empty thread. I can (or at least should be able to) field any questions, there isn't a higher authority to appeal to unfortunately, I've looked. Technically, one of my purposes here is to fish for unanswerable questions.