Re: Universal grammar
- From: haberg@xxxxxxxxxx (Hans Aberg)
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:18:27 GMT
In article <1161587631.740123.250670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rob
Freeman" <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I metamathematics. the only reason for choosing that approach, is that it
is simpler to develop a theory. It proves difficult to define semantics.
How are you trying to define semantics, Hans? What is giving you
trouble with it?
The traditional metamathematics takes a syntactic approach studying object
mathematics, leading to a "formal system", a language consisting of merely
symbols composed according to certain rules. Object math is though
properly describing integers, real numbers, etc. It is hard to pin these
objects down directly, the formal system approach being simpler from
the metamathematical point of view.
I use an intermediate, trees similar to the ASTs used in computer compiler
implementations. The point is that these are syntax independent. When
using a parser generator, one will have to generate some "semantics",
i.e., code snippets, and then these ASTs are useful.
It might work to some extent in linguistics as well. Take the sentence
I drive the car
One might represent it as
drive
/ \
I the
|
car
Here "drive" is an operator with two arguments, and "the" an operator with
one argument. Now, the same sentence in Klingon, which uses inverted word
order, might be translated into the same tree (though I am not sure the
language has definite article), thus viewing the word order as a syntactic
and not a semantical construct.
--
Hans Aberg
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- References:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: groups
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- Prev by Date: Re: Lexical differences between Spanish and Portuguese
- Next by Date: Re: Universal grammar
- Previous by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|