Re: THEORY: more questions
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, November 26, 2003, 17:26 |
|---|
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 11:47:03AM -0500, Paul Bennett wrote:
> Yes. Me, too. I don't approve of syntax. Give me a language with straight-
> up semantics only, and I'll be your pal for life.
> My own conlangs are an attempt at something like that idea, but I'm nowhere
> near fooling myself into beleiving it's true.
There's no difference, really; the "semantics" are *in* the syntax.
It's just a question of how deeply you examine things.
Language *is* syntax. You can simplify the rules greatly, but you still
need some.
-Mark