> On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Ed Heil wrote:
>
> > Boudewijn, this is a very simple version of "construction grammar,"
> > and I included the "based-on" relationships so you could be amused by
> > seeing object orientation used in a grammatical description of a
> > conlang. :)
>
> Hmmm. I don't think I'm really convinced that this isn't merely
> a notational variant after all ;-). I don't see any special constructions,
> like inheritance (multiple or otherwise - Panini already had inheritance
> of rules, if not of objects). Likewise, I have some trouble taking serious
> a paper that thinks a certain theory is desirable because it is
> natural (especially if the definition of naturalness includes
> symbolic links - a clear influence from Unix ;-), conceptual unification
> and theoretical austerity, instead of success in describing the variety
> of languages found in the world, and explaining the coherence of each
> language.
>
> I could try to offer a more substantial and less flippant review, if I
> were tempted to take it serious - but I really can't. Scott DeLancey
> is at the outer boundaries of what I can take - and I seldom agree
> with him (if only because I've found that he uses his data sometimes
> in a slip-shod way). I agree with Langacker that grammar encodes meaning,
> though, and I've enjoyed Wierzbicka's theoretical work to some extent,
> but Ronald Langacker is not for me...
>
>
http://crl.ucsd.edu/newsletter/4-3/Article1.html
>
> As for the language: more data, please!
>
> Boudewijn Rempt |
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bsarempt
>