[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike: I will have to give this more thought -- to think about how my own goals compare to the ones you list. But in the meantime I will add one less personal one, parsability. That is, whether an explicit parsing algorithm can be stated, and if so, how simple is it. A goal of Livagian is that the output of the parser is an explicit logically unambiguous representation. Furthermore, the parser cannot look ahead beyond the current word, and nor can it backtrack and alter structure it has already built. (I am slightly simplifying the lookahead contraint, but not misrepresenting the essential principle.) These principles usefully constrain the range of possible syntactic structures, and they also constrain the incidence of phonologically null words. Further, they act as the guarantor of nonambiguity and also of simplicity. A related issue is whether parsing the syntax gives you the logical structure. For example, although Lojban claims to have an explicit and unambiguous grammar, this claim is tantamount to being bogus, or at least fatuous, since all the grammar does is generate the set of well-formed word strings; the structure imposed by the grammar on the word strings does not give you the logical structure of the sentence. The rules for getting from the lexicosyntactic structure to the logical structure have not been created yet. (I exaggerate slightly: the grammar does yield predicate- argument structure, but not much beyond that.) More anon. --And.