[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> > wrote: >> >> sentence := formula | CA # formula | WA >> >> formula := HA | CCA | NA # formula | LA # formula # formula >> >> # := (CA # formula | WA)* > > As a side note, I admit that notation is nice and easy to read when you're > used to it. My concern is whether something so cryptic is the best way to > present the grammar to the world. As a compromise, I added the full names of the word classes in their definitions, but I kept the cryptic notation for the syntax part. I also followed you in dividing the grammar in three sections. And I re-named simple formulas as atomic formulas. > We could probably use something analogous to GOhA to say things like > "yes". Whether that class should be implicitly restricted sentential > variables or pro-formula particles I have given no thought to. But I do > think that that class is unsuited for doing what the trees that we have been > developing do. All right. Let's forget about that for now. I notice that we are allowing "coordinator foretree foretree" as a foretree, but not "binder fortree foretree". Is there any reason for this asymmetry? We could use that for example in: ri fi la ma djna he fi la ma lse he le zrce klmake "Every time John does, Alice does too, go to the store." co ma'a xrxe