Re: Another Introduction

On Wed, 28 May 2003 12:24:22 +0200, Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:

>En réponse à Alex Fink :
>
>
>>No, it's actually fairly isolating (although some words inflect to show
>>their number of arguments).  It looks polysynthetic because I don't use
>>spaces when writing it; no word is the same as the start of the beginning of
>>another word, so proceeding left to right along the message it can be
>>uniquely broken up:
>>
>>0001001111001                   10100100101111
>>language which _ is written in  the text of this sentence
>
>And how do those words break into morphemes?
0001001111001, which I realize now should have been 000100111100_0_, could
be called the morpheme 000100111100 'language which (argument1) is expressed
using', with the 0 indicating that its first argument is present.
10100100101111 breaks into:
101001001-  0-               11-
the text of (going backward) the 0th sentence
11
the whole sentence
'the text that is a part of the sentence reached by going back 0 sentences
from this one (i.e. this one), namely the whole of that sentence)
One can create a word beginning with 101001001 that refers to any phrase of
the text it occurs in.

Alex