[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Am 09.10.2012 02:09, schrieb Mike S.:
>
> Nice, what are you writing it in?
Prolog. It's working fine, but so far I can only run it on my own
computer. It would require some effort to get it to run online or to
make an executable file out of it because those are areas I'm not very
experienced in.
Hmm, if you post it somewhere, maybe I'll port it to Java. Maybe...
Hehe, maybe. I figure xorban's grammar is so simple that anyone who is more experienced than me could just write their own parser that they can put on the web. Maybe I'll rewrite it to make it strictly binary first though. And it doesn't output anything yet either (except "yes" and "no").
Nice. Is there any difference between a sentence and a discourse unit?
Probably not. Maybe eventually there might be things other than just plain sentences that can be thrown into discourse, maybe not.
I created a binary version of the syntax based on how I prefer to view the grammar here: http://loglang.wordpress.com/xorban/grammar/
Looks promising, though I haven't yet checked every rule. I do notice that these syntactical phrases don't sound very traditional, but maybe that is to be expected from an engelang.
I didn't bother to make the nested parentheticals conform to the binary syntax, though. If you want to do that, you'd need to make a separate production for every unique place they appear; e.g. TermP := Term P* That'd about double the size of the syntax section of the grammar. Jorge has gotten rid of the old "modifier" production which would have kept his version of the grammar more binary: modifier := NA | LA formula
That should be brought back in my opinion.
In my grammar that's been renamed a term, but it amounts to the same
thing. I do think that it's very helpful to view {binary operator +
first complement} as a meaningful constituent that behaves in a manner
similar to a unary operator. It's a construction that has a fair number
of reasonably close analogs in natural languages: objects/sumti,
adjectives, adverbs, case tags. Two formulas in a row doesn't really
have any constituent-like analog in natural languages.
Yes, I agree. It felt odd to join two formulae for no reason, and the other direction is much more natural. I literally threw that tree together in a few minutes just to hint at what I had in mind. Good.
This seems to be going somewhere. mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo doị mèlbi mlenì'u .i do càtlu ki'u ma fe la xàmpre ŭu .i do tìnsa càrmi gi'e sìrji se tàrmi .i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku .