Re: Grammar idea

Yann Kiraly wrote:
>>>
Hi! Based on a grammar I used for the schedule - less relay, I have created
a new language with a
veeery simple grammar. I would just like to know what you think about it and
if you think it would
work as a spoken or written language.
There is only one syntax rule in this (unnamed) language:
X Arguments.X na/.
That is supposed to mean:
Every word X is followed by its arguments. The end of the list of these
arguments is marked either
by  na or by a full stop. This is easier to understand when you imagine the
grammar rule like this:
X (Arguments.X)
The opening parantheses doesn't occur in speaking or writing. The closing
parantheses is
indicated by na, which closes one open parantheses, or a full stop, which
closes all open
parantheses. That's the whole syntax.
<<<

<delurk> This is remarkably similar to the seed idea of my conlang T4, which
has made occasional appearances on the list over the last two or three
years.

The major difference is that, even in its original incarnation, T4 always
had *two* ways of relating words or phrases. One was essentially the same as
your `na', if I interpret it correctly as `X Y takes-as-argument' -> `Y is
the argument of X'. The other was an identity relation, which one could
paraphrase in the same terms as `X Y is'. I can't immediately see how you'd
get by with just the former, if the relationship between a word X and its
argument Y is specified lexically in the definition of X.

Moreover, what about the copula? How would you translate `I am a frog.' in
your system? I suppose one way to do it might be to have the copula as a
full lexical item; then you could have `I (is (frog)).' In the original T4
system, your `grinning fruit' example would have been something like this
(I'm *still* agonising over how to treat constructions like `appeal
strongly', so I'll substitute `appeal' here for now):

((fruit grinning is) (appealing I na) is).
Gama panja `is' luru kwa na `is'.

... which can be partially paraphrased as ((fruit which is grinning)
(appealing to me) is).

These days, T4 would say in effect `((fruit grinning) (appeal na I)).', as I
now omit the identity operator (or realise it as zero, if you prefer) and
put the other operator between its arguments.

I'm actively working on a grammar sketch of T4, but it's only about a third
complete. If Yann or anyone else is interested, I can email you the
incomplete document as a PDF.

</delurk for now>

best,
Jonathan.
==
personal replies to jonathan underscore knibb at hotmai1 dot com