Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: LIFO languages (was Re: "Theory informs practice" - OK?)

From:Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Date:Saturday, November 15, 2008, 19:10
The Fith may routinely spout utterances that a human has no hope of
deciphering in real time, and a human with time on his hands may of course
put together such devious utterances, but I see no reason why two humans
couldn't have a real-time conversation in Fith. They just wouldn't use the
language to its fullest capabilities... but most real-time conversations
aren't the epitome of eloquence in any language.

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>wrote:

> Hallo! > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:16:04 +0100, Lars Finsen wrote: > > > Den 11. nov. 2008 kl. 23.19 skrev David J. Peterson: > > [...] > > > One of the best examples I've seen of this type > > > of language is Fith: a language built use LIFO grammar, > > > which, in real time, I think is impossible for a human to use. > > > > I don't see why it's so unusable. Wouldn't most statements be like a > > usual SOV language? There's just some curious argument stacking in > > some of the more involved cases, but nothing much more unmanageable > > than the verbal stacking that you find in German sometimes, I think. > > In a LIFO language like Fith ( http://www.langmaker.com/fith.htm ), > a simple clause looks indeed quite much like one on an SOV language, > but that is only a superficial resemblance because the language is > processed in a way completely different from human languages. > > The Fith grammar allows for really bizarre manipulations of word > order which are indeed at least very hard to follow for humans. > The language has "stack conjunctions" which duplicate, swap and > do other things with objects on the stack. By these means, words > can be pushed on the stack long before they are used, sentences > can be intermeshed, uttered in reverse order and so on. > > ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf >
-- Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Reply

David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...>