[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [engelang] Xorban: Termsets





On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
 
I understand BNF notation; I just can't translate it at a glance into something more linguistic (like, say, X' syntax). I can translate it only laboriously. And because my thinking is based in linguistics rather than computer science, I can only understand the syntax once it is translated into linguistic terms. Human language syntax is based on combinatorial properties of words, and exocentric phrases, if they exist at all, do not occur willynilly.

In practice, this just means that to comprehend your proposals, I'd have to sit down and translate them into a formalism that makes sense to me, and that takes more time than I have at the moment, what with me no longer being on holiday. It doesn't mean you've been too brief or cryptic. If you did want to translate into a formalism easy for me to grock, then I'd say: assume, as far as possible, that (i) there is no syntagmatic relation other than an asymmetric complement-of relation, and (ii) all nodes are terminal (or, all phrases are endocentric).

Unfortunately, while I do want to translate into a formalism that everyone can grock, due to my own background, I am not sure I would be able to do that based on the description that you have provided (and forgive me if I seem obtuse).  It may help if you could take the current official grammar or a part of it and as an illustration render it in the formalism that you prefer.  From there, I should be able to ask questions and figure out what you mean, and from there on, I will make a point of rewriting my ideas for productions and transformations in both forms (if I am able to).  Often it is insightful to write the same thing more than one way, so I really don't mind doing it twice.

--
co ma'a mke

Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.com
My LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com