Stack-based syntax (was affixes)

>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*