[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 23/09/2012 17:23:
There is a need for something like "ne/he", but I think we'd all feel better about delegating a whole C for "he" if there were other needs for non-formula complements. At this point of time, this would be a C for a single word.
I notice that (hypothetically) if we permitted all "n-" operators to be introduced into the grammar syncategorematically, then we could give different n-words different syntaxes. Since we don't have a lot of n-words (only three official), that's one idea for the future that might be better than using a whole C on a singleton (or small) word class.
The patterning of phonological shapes and syntactic valency gives prettiness or elegance, but is not in any way necessary or a significant contributor to usability. So consider the required syntax and lexis first, and then assign phonological shapes in such a way as to maximize usability first and then elegance second.
modifier := term | termlist termlist := �he� explicit-sentence? | term termlist | �j� V explicit-sentence? termlist termlist term := unary-operator | binary-operator formula
The main reason I haven't been able to make any useful comment on this is lack of time to digest and lack of the mental acuity necessary to grock the scheme in the course of a first reading. Partly also, though, to understand it I'd have to rewrite the rewrite rules into something more like natlang syntax. On the whole, natlang syntax is driven by combinatorial properties of the terminal nodes, and credible candidates for exocentric constructions are few. For a loglang, I'd formulate the rules as the syntagmatic relations established for each word during a L-to-R parse with no backtracking or lookahead. --And.