Hallo conlangers!

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:55:09 +0100 And Rosta wrote:

> R A Brown, On 20/04/2012 08:38:
> [...]
> >> Fith is weird because of its list operators, not because
> >> of the LIFO ordering of the list.
> >
> > I disagree. What would be weird IMHO is employing a stack
> > (LIFO) structure and have no operators. How would we use a
> > the stack? Communicator A pushes each word/utterance onto a
> > stack; when s/he has finished, listener B then pops them
> > off? That would be silly: it would simply mean that speaker
> > has to finish, then the listeners understands only when s/he
> > has the items in reverse!!!
> >
> > Obviously - I assume - that is not what you mean. But, if
> > there are no operators, how is the stack used or, more
> > importantly, why use a stack at all?
> 
> As you'll probably remember, Fith has a class of words called (IIRC)
> 'stack operators', some of which do counternatural stuff like
> reordering items on the stack. There's general agreement among us
> all that it's certain of these stack operators that make Fith weird.

They at least contribute to its weirdness.  Another "weird" thing,
likewise banned from Shallow Fith, is lingering - pushing something
onto the stack in order not to use it until much later.

> These operators are distinct from the basic syntactic operation of
> combining two items into one. The algorithm I gave in response to
> George's question applies equally to English and to Fith, and it
> uses this basic operation.
> 
> Fith without its operators would still be parsed using this basic
> operation of combination.

I don't really understand what you mean.  I think that you have
misunderstood some things.  Stacks aren't really useful in parsing
languages; programming language parsers operate with syntax trees,
not with stacks (except for those languages that have been *designed*
for being parsed with stacks, such as Forth), and I am pretty certain
that syntax trees are also used in parsing human languages with a
computer (I don't know for sure because I never was involved with
natural language processing).  The neurological patterns that build
up in our brains when we understand language are probably much more
like syntax trees than stacks!

If stacks were used by human beings to parse languages, why, then,
is there *not a single natlang* that allows for lingering and
similar tricks?
  
> >> The LIFO ordering is in fact human-language-like, and
> >> FIFO (or anything else) would be much more
> >> counternatural.
> >
> > I think that statement is quite controversial. Personally,
> > i see nothing in human language processing which leads me to
> > think that either LIFO or FILO is any more or less human
> > like.
> 
> (Is LIFO different from FILO?)

It would be the same, but I think "FILO" is a typo for "FIFO".

> I don't think the mere fact of your skepticism renders it
> controversial, especially in the context of the meagre amount
> of informed knowledge we have collectively adduced in our
> discussions, all of what little evidence has been adduced
> during which has been supplied by me.

Sh, be careful.  Ray knows *a lot* about linguistics (though he,
like me, is on the other side of the generativist/functionalist
divide), and also quite a bit about computers - he has degrees
in classical philology *and* computer science.  I have a hunch
that both Ray and I (who has a degree in computer science as
well) understand computers and parsing algorithms better than
you do ;)

> With regard to LIFO versus FIFO, if you have the auxiliary
> assumption (as I do) that only the top/first item on the
> processing list is accessible to the processor, then it
> seems to me (tho admittedly it boggles my mind and maybe
> I'm being obtuse) that FIFO ordering of the processing list
> is incompatible with natural language word order -- it would
> yield ineluctably tangling branches, no?

I agree with you that FIFO lists (queues) are not useful in
analyzing natural languages - but nor are stacks.  You need
syntax trees.

> > The mere fact that most of find using infix notation
> > in mathematics more "natural" than either prefix or postfix
> > seems a fair indicator to me that probably neither LIFO and
> > nor FIFO are more akin than the other to the working of the
> > human brain.
> 
> It seems to (again, a possibly obtuse) me that head--dependent
> ordering and the LIFO/FIFO ordering of the processing list
> (with the auxiliary assumption about only the first item being
> accessible) are orthogonal.

Head/dependent ordering is a parameter that can be switched;
both the head and the dependents are co-ordinate nodes in the
syntax tree, as you as a Chomskyan linguist certainly know.
It seems likely to me that stack-based languages with a word
order different from Fith could be constructed as well.

> [...]
> > What seems to me misleading is to suggest a stack can with
> > used without any operations being performed. What on earth
> > is the point of using a stack unless for the trivial task of
> > reversing things?
> 
> Hopefully things are clearer now that I've pointed out the
> distinction between Fith's processing list operators and basic
> parsing operations. (I was talking about the former; you
> thought I was talking about the latter, it seems.)

Fith's way of parsing the language is utterly different from the
human way, that's the point and nothing else.  You have been
entertaining the notion that the human language centre used
stacks to parse natural languages, while both Ray and I (and
probably most others in this thread) doubt that.

Even without the stack operators, Fith would not behave like a
human language - lingering would still be possible *without
limits*.  Lingering has *nothing* to do with _shen_, _du_ and
their ilk - it is a consequence of the stack-based parsing
method itself.
  
> > Also I am baffled by "... its vulnerability to the
> > limitations of short-term memory is in fact key evidence for
> > its involvement in psycholinguistic parsing."
> >
> > Surely on reason for using a stack is that things can be
> > stored lower in the stack which will eventually, during the
> > stacks use, find itself as the top item and is popped off
> > again. Long term retention of an item which eventually
> > resurfaces would IMO be some evidence that a stack structure
> > is being used.
> 
> Incremental increases in psycholinguistic processing difficulty
> demonstrably correlate with incremental modifications of tree
> shape. As I explained in a previous message, a prime theoretical
> candidate to explain this phenomenon involves the hypothesized
> use of a stack: given the premise that the probability of an
> item fading from memory while it is on the stack is a function
> of the time it is on the stack and of the number of items on the
> stack, then the theory does an excellent job of predicting the
> observed correlations between processing difficulty and tree
> shape.

You mean, an imperfect implementation of a stack with a finite
storage capacity, which drops the bottom element(s) when it
overflows to make room for new elements on the top.  I'd rather
say that the human brain operates with something like an
imperfect implementation of a syntax tree which likewise drops
old elements when it overflows.

> >But if all the storing and retrieving is
> > merely short term and no counting is involved then I find
> > myself in complete agreement with Logan who wrote:
> > "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."
> >
> > Amen.
> 
> I don't follow you; I don't see the relevance of this to our
> discussion; maybe you can explain further in the light of my further
> responses.

I guess he meant that there are many ways to implement a syntax
tree.  We'll perhaps never know what precise kind of neurological
patterns the human brain uses to parse languages; but I consider
it unlikely that it is a stack.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Êm, a Êm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Êmel." - SiM 1:1