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

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

Re: [engelang] Xorban: Termsets


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
 

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.

Okay, that's fine.  "Atomic formula" is good.

 
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

I suppose the reason is that I was fixed on our original purpose of condensing parallel coordinated sentences sharing an identical predication.  However, the example that you provide seems useful, so I'll adjust my version of the grammar to allow it.


--
co ma'a mke

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