Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Stack-based syntax (was affixes)

From:Rodlox R <rodlox@...>
Date:Friday, February 25, 2005, 2:12
>From: Ray Brown <> >Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> >To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU >Subject: Re: Stack-based syntax (was: affixes) >Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:38:42 +0000 > >On Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at 08:54 , Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>[snip] >>> In >>>fact, as you say, a true stack-based language will be utterly different >>>from any human language. But it is not easy for us to think in alien >>>terms
though we can try.
>============================================== > >On Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at 11:20 , Rodlox R wrote:
>>with curiosity, would Disambiguating Polysemy qualify as remotely >>stack-based? > >No. The only conlang I know where polysemy is deliberately in-built is R. >Srikanth's Lin.
that is why I asked. my reasoning: 1) I was once told that the conlang Lin utilized disambiguating polysemy. 2) "stacking" languages were recently compared with the conlang Lin. therefore, I added 1+2 in my mind, and got: 3) there is a link, however faint and tenuous, between stacking and disambiguating polysemy.
>Of course a method disambiguating polysemy could be implemented in a >stack-based syntax, but it does not have to be - indeed, in natural >languages it definitely is not.
it is definately not implemented in stack-based syntax / it is definately not implemented in natural languages / ? ...or did you mean something else? *curious*