OO Teory of languages (was Re: double negatives)
|From:||Carlos Thompson <cthompso@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, July 21, 1999, 14:20|
----- Mensaje original -----
De: Boudewijn Rempt <bsarempt@...>
Para: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
Enviado: Mi=E9rcoles 21 de Julio de 1999 01:40
Asunto: double negatives
> Indeed, yes. This concept of 'spaces' reminds me a lot of my conceptual
> model of namespaces in, say, C++... I wonder when the firstobject-oriented
> theory of language will appear, since we've already had a functional
> theory of language :-).
there are a set of objects: morphemes; words; sentences; texts. There's s=
specializations: free/bound morphems, roots, adfixes, clitics; verbs, nou=
particles; affirmations, questions, etc.
Each object play a function: morphemes form words, words make sentences,
sentences texts, govern by a set of laws. Also each morpheme has a meani=
which is shaded when combined in other objects.
encapsulation: each object can be describe in appropiate order: "dog", ev=
if different than "cat" can be described as a noun allowing it to have
singular and plural, forms and act as subject or object of a sentence, et=
polymorphism: the exact meaning of a given composition is defined by the
object: "do you have any money", "no, I don't", "do you play piano", "no,=
don't": the sentence "no, I don't" have different meanings in each dialog.
inheritance: both semantic or morphological. "dog" is morphologically
derived from noun, while semantically derived from "animal". In any
sentence you could put any noun you could put "dog", in any sentence you
could put "animal" you could put "dog". As "animal" is a count noun, "do=
is a count noun, etc. Well actualy noun is a class while "animal" and "d=