Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: METAGRAM -- Pt. 2 Some Observations

From:Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>
Date:Saturday, December 20, 2003, 16:08
--- Caleb Hines <cph9fa@...> wrote:
> <okay> getting{by emails{these}, of lenth{too-much}} > <!!!> > ("Okay, these emails are getting too much > length!!!")
OK, I'm taking your response off line for a while to study it. But just a few quickie thoughts while I'm here: I think your observation that I'm trying to make it verb-centric is right on the mark. In fact I think what I have in the back of my head is more like a computer programming language turned inside out to function as a descriptive rather than an imperative computer language.
> In fact, one problem I have with some > of your sentences is that you don't > seem to use it very > consistently. Sometimes you use > verbs "is:something", sometimes you > use prepositions "of:something", and > sometimes you use pronouns > "what:something". I've even seen > mixed versions "of-what:something". > This is all considerably more > inconsistent than I would like.
Actually I was not thinking of the words on the left of the ':' as actually being words, but rather that they are abstract and completely arbitrary tags that are defined and enumerated where ever the "function" is defined. I could just have easily written "glip:something," and "norb:something" just as long as "glip" and "norb" were defined as to what role they represent. I think the biggest difference between our approaches comes from the fact that my effort was meant to extract the essence of a sentence, with complete disregard for how that sentence was structured while your apporach is to describe the sentence itself. Since my previous post I have diverged even further in the direction of an "object oriented" syntax, which simplifies and clarifies a lot of the structures in my previous post. However it also becomes completely function-centric and loses any resemblence whatsoever to METAGRAM. I like your METAGRAM idea, but I also like my divergent mutation of it. I'm sure they can co-exist, but I'm not sure they are mutually inteligible. ;-) Just to give you the general flavor of my mutant object-oriented species, here is "John threw the big red ball" john.Throw( OBJECT:ball.Attribute( SIZE:big COLOR:red ) TENSE:past ) OR in indented form: john.Throw ( OBJECT:ball.Attribute ( SIZE:big COLOR:red ) TENSE:past ) The "Functions" are all verbs of one sort or another, or assertions reagrding some property, attribute, state, or condition of the object. --gary


Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>METAGRAM + OOP = ABLE a conlang experiment