Re: [engelang] reformulating the core grammar - engelang messages

as a first shot, that both complements of a quantifier QV' contain a free occurrence of V', where this is defined syntactically as not being subordinate to any _expression_ of the form QV' other than the one cited. That takes some work to get into BNF or your system (or GT generally) but is essential to this making any sense at all.

From: And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email>
To: engelang@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [engelang] reformulating the core grammar

Those are syntactic rules, not rules of inflectional morphology or semantics. What syntactic rule is missing? Can you supply it?

On Sep 30, 2012 3:10 PM, "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:

This still does not give a rule for binding.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 30, 2012, at 5:29 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:

John E. Clifford, On 30/09/2012 00:37:
> Sa bcde fghi

Right; as I said, there are also the binding rules.

1. Definitions:
a. If X is a subordinate of Y then X is a complement of Y or X is a subordinate of a complement of Y
b. X is a superordinate of Y iff Y is a subordinate of X
c. X is a binder of Y iff Y is a bindee of X
2. If X is a binder of Y then X is a superordinate of Y
3. lV, sV, rV, xV, gV are always binders
4. gV, mV, fV, vV, bV, dV (but unnecessarily) and 'argument-markers' [prob best to treat argument-markers as complements of 'formula'] are always bindees
5. Binder of vV is always fV [--Maybe; i forget if this is not always so]

--And.

> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 29, 2012, at 5:44 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
>
>> John E Clifford, On 29/09/2012 23:15:
>> > I have now seen some such exchange, but "explains what's going on"
>> > seems a very generous overstatement and does not in any way alleviate
>> > my qualms.
>>
>> I'm wondering if your iPad conceals quoted material in emails, so that you sometimes miss the context? My Android phone sometimes does that. Do remember that the rest of us usually go to greater or lesser pains to quote the bit we're responding to (and cut out any bits we're not responding to).
>>
>> With regard to the exchange you were responding to, I'd observed that before I can really understand BNF rules such as Jorge and Mike have produced, I have to first of all sit down and work out a set of generatively equivalent rules of the type that human languages use. At Mike's invitation, I wrote out a set of human-language-type rules that are generatively equivalent(ish) to Jorge's core grammar BNF rules. I agree that Xorban grammar must include rules for binding relations (and not just complement relations), but that is not relevant to what Mike and me were discussing.
>>
>> You go on to say "It clearly results in sentences which I would consider ungrammatical as well as nonsense". Do give examples of such sentences so that we can consider them. I'm not aware of there being any sentences that are generated but ungrammatical -- with the proviso that in Core Xorban all variables must be bound.