[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NGL: Grand cross-check (Section 1)
NGL: Grand cross-check
In the spirit of Gerald's suggestion to test the modules together before
accepting them, I have tested all proposals listed as currently under
consideration in the current version of "The Next Generation Language
Progress Report" (Posted yesterday to alt.language.artificial.ngl)
together to find any incompatibilities and their possible resolutions.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Those systems which do not already have morphemes will have
compatible morphemes designed for them.
2. Where language is ambiguous, a strict interpretation is best.
3. Later revisions superceede earlier ones.
4. Rules which do not exist yet will fit existing rules.
SECTION 1, RULES COMPARISONS:
This section is based exclusively on comparing the rules and looking for
ambiguities which could interact. This section is basicly an irregularity
checker.
MY OWN SYSTEMS:
Initial thoughts:
Since I created all my own systems with a good understanding of what I
had already created, it seems that they would agree well with each other.
I am generally carefull about making sure things are internally
consistant, but I may have missed a few things.
Verb system:
Internal:
* Schizoid alternations between t/a/m and m/t/a as the
order preferred.
--Resolved by minor revision.
* Infinitive mood is unnessicary given the total overlap
with the generic.
--Resolved by removal.
* Combining moods mentioned but never given form.
PROPOSAL: The narrative mood is the indicative mood, but is formally
marked and does not include the interrogative. It is marked
with an m. The infinitive mood is removed from the chart.
Word order:
* Broken inflection rules not consistant between them.
--Resolved by internal consistantcy revision under WO.
* Broken inflection more limited in WO proposal.
--Revised limits to those under WO.
Word order:
Internal:
* Position of broken case markings varries.
--Resolved by minor revision, should read:
NP= {article} [broken case markings] NOUN+
[unbroken case markings] {adjectives{adverbs}} [broken
case markings]
* Clause rule and adverb describing adjective rule should
be taken as part of main language, which is not made
clear here.
* No example given for semi-fixed order
--Example added.
Punctuation:
* Punctuation not consistant with punctuation rules
--Puntuation rules should be taken to superceede rules
here.
Verb system:
* Terminological differences in defining broken
inflection.
--Revised to match Verb system definition.
Derivational:
* Adverbs applying only to previous word not mentioned.
--Revised to include these.
Pronoun system:
No inconsistantcies found in basic pronouns.
Punctuation:
Internal:
* Slight fluctuation in definitions of clause types.
--Revised to universally follow the definitions in WO.
* Descriptive clause question/exclamation mark placement
is possible to confuse with coordinated clause but not
major.
* NOTE under graduation disagreed with later revision,
revision should be taken to superceede.
* Claims Latin-1 consistantcy but uses CP-1215 chrs.
--Revised for more correct character use.
Derivation:
* Ignores possible prefixed derivational and grammar
morphemes.
--Revised to include them.
Things not addressed:
Many of the cross-incompatibilities, none of which were major (as was
expected) were caused by the non-addressal of certain things which did
not exist at the time they were written. Many of the revisions are
rooted in the original discussion of these proposals, and now included.
Most of this is just cleaning up.
OTHER PEOPLE'S SYSTEMS:
Initial thoughts:
If there are any incompatibilities, this is where they will crop up.
This is still a sec. 1 analysis, but it should tell us where the major
problems are likely to be.
Julian's Pronoun system:
No internal inconsistantcies.
My Verb system:
* Different styles of number marking.
--Not a significant problem when compared to natlangs;
also easily revisable should this be accepted.
Word Order:
* Does not account for case marking.
--Can be remedied by stipulating to the normal noun
case markers.
Number theory:
* Does not support more than singular/plural.
--Since it lacks forms, this can be built into the
forms when created. I assume possible regularity here.
Julian's Verb system:
Internal:
* System is vague and incomplete as presented. See
my original comments.
--Can only be remedied by re-poposal, and was never
listed as seriously proposed.
* Proper usage of combining auxiliaries (well, that's
what they look like) is never explained.
--Add explanation.
* Persistant confusion of Mood, tense, aspect and their
combinations.
--Not a serious problem so long as done consistantly.
My verb system:
* Incompatible definitions of mood/tense/aspect.
--Could not be made to agree, where mine forces
regularity, his forces vagueness. The two cannot
work as part of the same system.
* Incompatible means of expressing functions.
--Could not work together, cross-interference between
inflections and auxiliaries is expected under any rule.
* More incompatabilities exist, but I've already proved
that, in theory at least, they wouldn't work together.
Module rules:
* Tense marking defaults preclude modularity.
--Revise defaults.
Word order:
* Word order does not account for the positioning of
auxiliaries which system appears to require.
--Auxiliaries could be interpreted to follow the same
rules as broken inflections.
Derivation:
* Verb derivation morphemes require more precision than
the system as presented could give.
--Re-propose with major revisions to increase precision.
Space and Motion Vector:
Internal:
No internal inconsistantcies that I could find.
My verb system:
* Tends to usurp time and rule out grammaical
mood.
--Fixed by revised Durative aspects.
* Presents alternative view of time.
--Not an important difference, since verb system is
modular and a system with exactly this system is being
proposed soon.
* Systems mark vecotrs to different levels of precision.
--Can be solved while making morphemes.
Word order:
* Does not say what the adverbs describe.
--Revise to include verbs, adjectives, and adverbs of
motion, possible sentence level motion, etc.
* WO lacks a way to mark origin of vector system.
--Revise WO to assume the grammatical subject/topic of
the sentence is anthro origin. Otherwise mark w/
morpheme.
* No way to mark origin expressed obliquely.
--I have no idea how to remedy this.
Julian's Verb system:
* System is to vague to handle requirements of Motion
vector, systems do not mark compatibly.
--Rooted in basic problem of proposal.
* Incompatible terminology as to what vectors are.
--Revise to match motion vector.
Derivation:
* Vector system markers lack clear part-of-speach.
--Revise to include definitions and justifications.
* Part of speach transformations may not work reliably
on vector expressions.
--Wait for Sec. 2 to find out.
Sincerely,
Jack Durst
Spynx@sierra.net
[this posting written in Net English]