Re: Stack-based syntax (was: affixes)

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:41:57PM +0000, Ray Brown wrote:
> But I am not sure where this getting us. Both Jörg and I have said that we
> think Jeffrey's Fith is real attempt at constructing an _alien_ language
> (unlike some efforts); but we feel that some things could be reconsidered.
And I agree with that.  It just sounded to me like you considered Fith
to be "not stack-based enough", and I was trying to explain why I don't
agree with that assessment.  For instance, I don't think inflection is
inherently incompatible with the stack-based syntax; it's just part of
how the operands are interpreted, and separate from the stack logic
itself.  As I said in my original message, many lanaguages mix synthetic
and analytic components, even using different headedness (left vs
right), and I see this as similar.

So I don't consider e.g. "I store the to went" to be any less valid
stack-based syntax than "I store the to go PAST END" or whatever.

That's all.

>  I am not aware of any human groups who find it either
> necessary or useful to have hand signals to make clear what part of speech
> different words are. I feel that it would be possible to have stack-based
> syntax without this expedient.
Sure, provided there's no homonymy between operands and operators,
or between operators of different orders.  If there is such homonymy,
then some sort of disambiguator is needed - context may not be enough,
as it may come too late to salvage the stack state.

-Marcos

Reply