There is 1 message in this issue. Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Fith Texts From: And Rosta Message ________________________________________________________________________ 1.1. Re: Fith Texts Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com Date: Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:38 am ((PDT)) I agree with you, as can be seen by comparing my original message to Miles Forster about LIFO conlangs. In haste, --And. Logan Kearsley, On 19/04/2012 00:53: > On 18 April 2012 17:19, And Rosta<and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] >> Logan writes: "if a general LIFO stack is not only sufficient but necessary, >> then the human brain can't handle it, because language doesn't count higher >> than 2. Natural language processing abilities are neither a strict superset >> nor subset of >> what an ideal push-down automaton can handle; we're differently constrained >> by having small, finite memory." >> >> The stack as I have described it does not require counting, and its >> vulnerability to the limitations of short-term memory is in fact key >> evidence for its involvement in psycholinguistic parsing. > > It only doesn't require counting if you never have to explicitly > access something at a depth other than "on top". And if that's the > case, the fact that you happen to be using a stack underneath is not > particularly interesting, because you could just as well use something > else and get the same results. > >> Logan continues: >> >> "When discussing the idea of LIFO grammar in a conlang context, it's >> important to distinguish between a language that *can* be parsed by a >> stack machine, and a language that *relies* on being interpreted by a >> stack machine. The former I consider to be a rather useless >> categorization, but Fith is a LIFO language in the second, stronger >> sense. It may thus be less computationally complex than human >> languages, but falls prey to the division between "problems that our >> brains can be trained to solve by conscious emulation" and "problems >> for which our brains have a suitable algorithm compiled in"." >> >> Again to repeat the earlier thread, there is no essential difference between >> Fith (without stack operators) and English. The tree structure for a Fith >> sentence would be indistinguishable from the tree structure of a head-final >> natlang. > > Fith without stack operators is not Fith. > The result of removing the stack operators from Fith isn't anything > that I would find it useful to classify as a LIFO stack language, > precisely because it is indistinguishable from a normal head-final > natlang; it doesn't *do* anything with the fact that it happens to be > implemented with a stack. > > -l. Messages in this topic (63) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/ <*> Your email settings: Digest Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------