Re: Grammar idea

Hallo!

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.
Nice!  But why use parentheses at all?  They are needed only if the same
word can be used with different numbers of arguments.  If every word
has a fixed number of arguments (which is always advisable in a
loglang),
no parentheses are necessary.  To form underspecified clauses (e.g.,
equivalents of English agentless passives), the unspecified argument
slots are filled with dummy morphemes.  That feels more elegant to me.

> [example snup]
>
> So, please comment on this little language.
At your service.

Greetings,

Jörg.