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

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

Re: [engelang] reformulating the core grammar

I am having trouble following your wandering notion of syntax.  I would have assumed that a minimum requirement was to specify the well-formed sentences of the language.  While [Ex Fy} Gz  may be a wff in Logic (it isn't in my system, but there are are variants), I dont think that sa mlte xkri  would get by in Xorban.  And I don't quite see how attaching arguments to predicates fails to be syntax in a language of this sort (although, if myopic singulars get in, I suppose something has to be left out).


From: And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email>
To: engelang@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [engelang] reformulating the core grammar

 
John E Clifford, On 30/09/2012 20:10:
> 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.

I think you're mixing up syntax and inflectional morphology. Inflectional morphology is the phonological _expression_ of elements of syntactic structure. There are rules of inflectional morphology, and they will need to be specified (tho we know what they are), but they do not belong among syntactic rules.

--And.

> *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?