Re: Stack-based syntax (was: affixes)

Hallo!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:38:42 +0000,
Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at 08:54 , Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
> > Hallo!
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:38:22 +0000,
> > Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:
> [snip]
> >> I am well acquainted with stacks and their various uses. Probably because
> >> I associate 'stack-based syntax' or LIFO syntax with the evaluation of
> >> 'Reverse Polish' expressions, I would prefer operators and lexical items
> >> to be kept distinct.
> >
> > Comparisons between human languages (or languages of some other sort
> > of sapient beings; we definitely go beyond *human* languages when
> > discussing stack-based languages) and computer programming languages
> > are always problematic.
>
> I agree. IMO treating computer programming languages as mini-versions of
> ordinary human languages is misleading. The use of 'language' in connexion
> with these programming codes is a metaphor, as is much other computing
> terminology.
Yes.  Computer programming languages are "languages" only in a rather
broad sense of the word, namely in being systems of symbols that are
combined according to some kind of rules.

> [...]
>
> > Yes.  There is much "SAE" thinking involved in the grammar of Fith,
> > which is misfortunate.  And the hand gestures associated with the
> > language are a device which strikes me as hackish and clumsy.
>
> Agreed on both points.
>
> > It seems as if we could do better.  Nevertheless, Fith stands out
> > as a language that breaks out of the corset of human language thinking
> > at least in one regard.
>
> I agree. It is always easy to spot weaknesses in some pioneering effort.
> Fith is an attempt to produce a real alian, non-himan language.
Yes, and it is not a bad attempt.  Its merit lies in being the first
language (as far as we know; there may be older stack-based conlangs
that have never been published) departing from the kind of syntax
human languages use by being based on a stack-based syntax, and that
will remain no matter whether later conlangers will come up with more
elegant or less SAE-influenced stack-based languages.

> > I have seen "alien" languages that don't
> > look more alien than, say, Old Albic.
>
> Indeed, so have I  :)
I could have said "Welsh", "Japanese" or some other natlang name
instead of "Old Albic"... there are "alien languages" that are
little more than relexes of English.

> [snip]
> >>       and I didn't want to
> >> be too discouraging to Max. But you are right - it ain't a SOV at all.
> >
> > Yes.  The term "SOV" is part of a typology meant for the kind of
> > languages humans use, but stack-based languages, even if they happen
> > to have "nouns" and "verbs" like Fith, operate outside that frame,
> > so a resemblance of a stack-based language to an SOV etc. language
> > can only be superficial.
>
> I agree.
>
> [snip]
> >> I agree entirely. Unfortunately IMO because Fith is described in terms of
> >> the familiar Latinate 'parts of speech' one can get the impression that
> >> the stack is merely another way of presenting a SOV human language.
> >
> > Well, I think that even in the concrete case of Fith, it is clear that
> > it isn't.
>
> I think you are correct - that was what I meant by "impression". A
> comparison of a SOV natlang such a Turkish with Fith would, I think, soon
> show up the difference.
Yes.  I also think so.  A simple clause like "The man sees the robot"
might look similar, but when more complex sentences come into play
(especially when Fith deploys all its stack-manipulating tricks),
the vast difference soon becomes obvious.

> [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
> >>   :)
> >
> > Right.  And I expect languages of real alien intelligences to be much
> > more bizarre than any science-fictional speculations that have been
> > made so far.
>
> I hope so - it will make linguistics much more interesting   :)
Oh yes!

> > We know no non-human sapients and no non-human sapients'
> > languages, so our models of alien languages are inevitably
> > anthropocentric.
>
> Yes, try as hard as we can, it is extremely difficult to avoid all
> anthropocentricity.
Exactly.

Greetings,

Jörg.