Re: Another Sketch: Palno

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Veoler <veoler@...> wrote:
> Logan Kearsley wrote:
>>> This seems to have potential for ambiguity, if one's not fastidious about
>>> the positions of the commas (and maybe even if one is, with a more
>>> complicated example -- I haven't convinced myself either way).  Consider a
>>> sentence of form
>>>  a who a.ACC p a.ACC p a.ACC p
>>> where each a is an atom, and each p a predicate taking nom and acc
>>> arguments.  Does the relative clause finish after the first p, or the second?
>>
>> Or after the third, leaving an incomplete sentence. You can't tell
>> without the commas. They are absolutely required. It would be nice to
>> have a way around that, but I haven't found one yet.
>
> Latejami (and my own conlang which is heavily influenced by Latejami) have a
*Googles Latejami*
Machine translation interlanguage?

> parse rule that the parser won't quit the current level until it encounters
> something which violates the syntax for that level. So if you have an adverb
> following an embedded verb then it will always be parsed as modifying the
> embedded verb and not the main one. If you want it to modify the main verb
> you have to use a particle which terminates the embedded verb.
> Maybe something like this could work for you language?
Hm. Yeah, I think it could, but not exactly the same, since I don't
want to have to add particles, etc. But perhaps an affix or a 1-arity
predicate that does nothing but say "this can't be an argument". And
explicit "return" statement to go along with the relative clause
function call analogy.

-l.