Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Another Sketch: Palno

From:Logan Kearsley <chronosurfer@...>
Date:Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 14:54
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.