Re: My Three Assertions

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
Date: 24 Feb 2005 23:49:17 +0100
Subject: Re: My Three Assertions
To: saizai@saizai.com


Hi!

Sai Emrys <saizai@...> writes:
> > stack syntax
>
> Isn't that just a matter of staying within 7+-2 bounds? I don't see
> anything inherently more difficult about the *syntax* that makes it
> human-incompatible.
I think so, too.  SOV and OSV syntax are just like Fithian.  A typical
*long* Japanese sentence (or a long German sentence, too) uses a stack
quite heavily.  It first pushes the nouns, then pops them with a verb,
pushes back the combined concepts, pushes more nouns, and finally pops
the rest.

Only a human language has a principle limitation in both the amount of
words a concept can be remembered when it is not used (=life time of a
stack cell) and the amount of data that can be remembered at the same
time (=stack depth).

Stack modification is strange, however.  Although voices often come
close.

E.g.

... daß Peter Maria Rolf  Essen  kochen     helfen     sehen      kann.
       push  push  push  push   poppoppush poppoppush poppoppush poppush

German has no strict stack-based approach since it uses adjective and
articles to the left.

Also note that such natlangs keep concepts on the stack for quite a
considerable amount of time:

... daß Peter Maria Rolf tolles Essen, mit ganz viel Pfeffer, Gewürzen,
   Fleisch und Gemüse, daß sie nachher gegessen und genossen haben,
   kochen helfen und dann abwaschen und wieder in den Schrank einräumen
   sehen kann.

No problem: 'Peter' is pushed at the very beginning and popped by
'sehen'.  This is quite the structure Fith has: first push all the
nouns, then pop them in the course of the sentence.

**Henrik