Re: Stack-based syntax (was: affixes)

Hallo!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:53:32 -0500,
"Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 06:38:22PM +0000, Ray Brown wrote:
> > >>I do not see how a lexical category like verb should act as an operator.
> > >>Isn't it something more like: singing, John, NOM = John is singing?
> > >
> > >It is a question of semantics.  In Fith, verbs are indeed operators.
> >Intransitive verbs are unary operators, transitive verbs are binary
> > >operators.
> >
> > You're right. Once again the Fith verb is combining both lexical meaning
> > and operator.
>
> Which is not as odd as you make it out to be, IMO.  If the verb has lexical
> semantics, then don't the operators in arithmetic RPN likewise have lexical
> semantics?  It's not "3, 2, ADDITION, PERFORM", it's just "3 2 +".
> And certainly there must be some  "lexical" information in the - and ÷
> operators, which enforce an ordering on their operands?
This is a good point.  There is certainly a difference in semantics
between "3 2 +" and "3 2 -", and why not consider that lexical?
After all, you can define as many two-argument functions as you like.

> > > Perhaps more "part-of-speech" thinking involved here
> > >than there should be.
>
> I think rather that y'all are demanding too much syntactic rigor from what
> is, after all, intended to be a natlang. An alien natlang, but still a
> natlang, not a loglang or engelang.
Again, a good point.  Indeed, a language like the one Ray would like
to see is more syntactically rigorous than any human natlang, and
why should the natlangs of any alien sapient species be more
syntactically rigorous than ours?  There is no solid reason for that.
Of course, a "Fithian Lojban" might actually be like what Ray is
dreaming of.

Greetings,

Jörg.