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

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

Re: [engelang] Xorban: Termsets

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Some initial comments.
 
1. I don't see a good rationale for having a load of special rules to accommodate parentheticals -- at least not when Xorban is trying not to be more complicated than it needs to be.

Do you prefer that parentheticals be removed from the grammar, or handled another way?

 
2. It would be good to adopt a sounder less improvised formalism, separating syntax from phonology, and able to accommodate phonologically-null and semantically-interpreted syntax. What we have at present is a constituent structure imposed on a phonological string -- everything wrong with Lojban pseudogrammar is wrong with this, albeit to a far lesser degree.

I am not sure how separating phonology (which is really just the segment-terminals in these rules) from syntax would help anything, but I would like to point out that unlike Lojban's production rules, Xorban's are 100% vanilla BNF, and have been from Jorge's first draft onwards.  My hypothetical rules are also vanilla BNF.

 
3. It would be helpful for the rules for binding to be made explicit. Do the rules for binding remain the same as they are for basic Xorban?

--And.

To date there have been no binding rules in the formal grammar.

--
co ma'a mke

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