Subject | From | Date | Time |
Gladifers and the Fith may be able to embed clauses indefinitely, but
humans cannot, and nowhere does this cause more problems than with |
Gladifers and the Fith may be able to embed clauses indefinitely, but
humans cannot, and nowhere does this cause more problems than with |
Gladifers and the Fith may be able to embed clauses indefinitely, but
humans cannot, and nowhere does this cause more problems than with |
>
> Hm. Where do question words go in Fith? If ever there were a candidate
> language to use WH-backing, that would seem to be it.
There are no question words in the published Fith Lexicon, and I can't
find any examples of questions in available Fith texts, but... I don't
see how they could be anything but in-situ. Fith doesn't have any
special syntactic reorganization procedures--just what you can do with
A reverse-Fith, with prefix rather than postfix operators, could have
clause-final WH-words. |
Subject: Re: Does WH-backing exist?
Hm. Where do question words go in Fith? If ever there were a candidate
language to use WH-backing, that would seem to be it. |
Hm. Where do question words go in Fith? If ever there were a candidate
language to use WH-backing, that would seem to be it. |
pronouns and cross-sentence of exophoric pronouns. As demonstrated by
Fith, it is trivial to design a language which has no need for
endophoric pronouns, because cosaturation can be unambiguously |
FITH - by Jeffrey Henning: Axhrèstutlh "Egg-language"
Äúi - aUI
Axhrèstutlh - Fith
Càhletutlh - Galach (any Galactic language) |
> Or is the concept or a proto-language and a list of roots completely alien
> to the way that language works (could there be a proto-Fith? or a
> proto-Teonaht?). Of course, one could say that "roots" and |
Or is the concept or a proto-language and a list of roots completely alien
to the way that language works (could there be a proto-Fith? or a
proto-Teonaht?). Of course, one could say that "roots" and |
> progenitor, does not--and FORTH was in fact the inspiration for the
> classic conlang Fith. FORTH uses a stack to track argument saturation,
> and Fith is described as being "stack-based" itself.
> Semantically-empty combinators are what FORTH calls "stack operators"
> and Fith calls "stack conjunctions". However, it is important to note
> that that is an implementation detail of how the language is processed |
progenitor, does not--and FORTH was in fact the inspiration for the
classic conlang Fith. FORTH uses a stack to track argument saturation,
and Fith is described as being "stack-based" itself.
Semantically-empty combinators are what FORTH calls "stack operators"
and Fith calls "stack conjunctions". However, it is important to note
that that is an implementation detail of how the language is processed |
Sambahsa I'm sure all have stories of their own. Someone should write a
chapter about Fith. And AllNoun. And Navi. And Latejami. And fan Trek
languages (Vulcan, Borg). |
> > > >> generated and aren't actually used by the creator of the conlang.
> > > >> (I'm thinking of Fith, but I'm sure there are many examples). <I
> > > >> vaguely remember Yiklamu ??? having a large vocabulary.> |
> > >> generated and aren't actually used by the creator of the conlang.
> > >> (I'm thinking of Fith, but I'm sure there are many examples). <I
> > >> vaguely remember Yiklamu ??? having a large vocabulary.> |
> >> generated and aren't actually used by the creator of the conlang.
> >> (I'm thinking of Fith, but I'm sure there are many examples). <I
> >> vaguely remember Yiklamu ??? having a large vocabulary.> |
> >> generated and aren't actually used by the creator of the conlang.
> >> (I'm thinking of Fith, but I'm sure there are many examples). <I
> >> vaguely remember Yiklamu ??? having a large vocabulary.> |
>> generated and aren't actually used by the creator of the conlang.
>> (I'm thinking of Fith, but I'm sure there are many examples). <I
>> vaguely remember Yiklamu ??? having a large vocabulary.> |
> > aren't actually used by the creator of the conlang. (I'm thinking of
> Fith,
> > but I'm sure there are many examples). <I vaguely remember Yiklamu ??? |
> possible that some of these word lists have been computer generated and
> aren't actually used by the creator of the conlang. (I'm thinking of Fith,
> but I'm sure there are many examples). <I vaguely remember Yiklamu ??? |
> generated and aren't actually used by the creator of the conlang.
> (I'm thinking of Fith, but I'm sure there are many examples). <I
> vaguely remember Yiklamu ??? having a large vocabulary.> |
possible that some of these word lists have been computer generated and
aren't actually used by the creator of the conlang. (I'm thinking of Fith,
but I'm sure there are many examples). <I vaguely remember Yiklamu ??? |
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Remembering Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Remembering Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Remembering Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
This reminds of that Fith sentence with "blue" at the beginning. Anyway,
I'll see whether I can "translate" it into seven words: |
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Remembering Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Remembering Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Remembering Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Remembering Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
> FORTH, upon which Fith is based, is part of a larger class of
> (programming) languages known as "concatenative languages", whose
> concatenation of such substrings (modulo type compatibility). The
> corresponding statement for non-programming languages like Fith would
> be that any arbitrary substring of a grammatical utterance is itself a |
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Remembering Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
FORTH, upon which Fith is based, is part of a larger class of
(programming) languages known as "concatenative languages", whose
concatenation of such substrings (modulo type compatibility). The
corresponding statement for non-programming languages like Fith would
be that any arbitrary substring of a grammatical utterance is itself a |
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Remembering Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
The Smileys page gives a good overview of Fith, but the basic idea is
easily shown with arithmetic. If you have a variable F containing the
> different conlangs - many of them which were made before my time. One way
> to remember them is by using them for translation exercises. Fith was
> created by Jeffrey Henning. It has a unique grammar that I wo'n't even
> attempt to explain. However, David Peterson provides a good summary of it
> on his page in which Fith won the 2019 Smiley Award. All that I know about
> Fith and the samples below come from that page.
>
> For most of us, it would be impossible to translate Fith the way that it
> is. But perhaps we could translate certain elements in a Fithian way. For
>
> Fith's Smiley Award (where I got these sentences) can be found here:
> |
From: Puey McCleary <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Remembering Fith
different conlangs - many of them which were made before my time. One way
to remember them is by using them for translation exercises. Fith was
created by Jeffrey Henning. It has a unique grammar that I wo'n't even
attempt to explain. However, David Peterson provides a good summary of it
on his page in which Fith won the 2019 Smiley Award. All that I know about
Fith and the samples below come from that page.
For most of us, it would be impossible to translate Fith the way that it
is. But perhaps we could translate certain elements in a Fithian way. For
Fith's Smiley Award (where I got these sentences) can be found here: |
> > > I've emailed back for clarification, but I think he means grammatical
> > > constructions that humans would never evolve. I've told him about Fith,
> > but |
> > I've emailed back for clarification, but I think he means grammatical
> > constructions that humans would never evolve. I've told him about Fith,
> but |
> I've emailed back for clarification, but I think he means grammatical
> constructions that humans would never evolve. I've told him about Fith, but
> I'm sure there are more. Do any of you have good examples? |
>I've emailed back for clarification, but I think he means grammatical
>constructions that humans would never evolve. I've told him about Fith, but
>I'm sure there are more. Do any of you have good examples? |
> I've emailed back for clarification, but I think he means grammatical
> constructions that humans would never evolve. I've told him about Fith, but
> I'm sure there are more. Do any of you have good examples? |
I've emailed back for clarification, but I think he means grammatical
constructions that humans would never evolve. I've told him about Fith,
but |
I've emailed back for clarification, but I think he means grammatical
constructions that humans would never evolve. I've told him about Fith, but
I'm sure there are more. Do any of you have good examples? |
>
> In some sense I have reinvented Fith, because the crossing gadget with
> n = 2 is basically the same as Fith's SWAP operation, and the
> trivalent vertex with n = 1 as its DUP operation. But I think mine is |
>
> In some sense I have reinvented Fith, because the crossing gadget with
> n = 2 is basically the same as Fith's SWAP operation, and the
> trivalent vertex with n = 1 as its DUP operation. But I think mine is |
In some sense I have reinvented Fith, because the crossing gadget with
n = 2 is basically the same as Fith's SWAP operation, and the
trivalent vertex with n = 1 as its DUP operation. But I think mine is |
> A conlang which does not function like natural language would be
> unusable. Such schemes have been designed, true; Jeffrey Henning's Fith
> is an example - and Jeff himself conceded that it would be probably be
> utterly unusable by humans. Of course, Fith is meant to represent a
> language of extraterrestrial beings whose language-processing neural |
A conlang which does not function like natural language would be
unusable. Such schemes have been designed, true; Jeffrey Henning's Fith
is an example - and Jeff himself conceded that it would be probably be
utterly unusable by humans. Of course, Fith is meant to represent a
language of extraterrestrial beings whose language-processing neural |
> linguistic(s) purposes in mind, even or especially when their natures are
> alien to natlangs, and I would say Kelen, Fith and possibly a few others
> are likewise. So the difference between linguistic and non-linguistic |
linguistic(s) purposes in mind, even or especially when their natures are
alien to natlangs, and I would say Kelen, Fith and possibly a few others
are likewise. So the difference between linguistic and non-linguistic |
> unnatural is one of those zombie myths that keeps on resurfacing. I think
> the origin of the myth is that the conlang Fith is known as 'the
> stack-based conlang' (in much the same way as, say, Kelen is known as the
> 'no open verb class conlang'), Fith includes stack manipulation operators
> which are profoundly unnatural, and this has led to the ineradicable |
> unnatural is one of those zombie myths that keeps on resurfacing. I think
> the origin of the myth is that the conlang Fith is known as 'the
> stack-based conlang' (in much the same way as, say, Kelen is known as the
> 'no open verb class conlang'), Fith includes stack manipulation operators
> which are profoundly unnatural, and this has led to the ineradicable
Fair. These stack operators are the main "unnatural" feature of Fith;
otherwise, it looks pretty much like an SOV/NG/NA language, a type
restricts those stack operators sufficiently, one gets a proper subset
of Fith which ought to be human-parsable:
https://www.frathwiki.com/Shallow_Fith |
unnatural is one of those zombie myths that keeps on resurfacing. I think
the origin of the myth is that the conlang Fith is known as 'the
stack-based conlang' (in much the same way as, say, Kelen is known as the
'no open verb class conlang'), Fith includes stack manipulation operators
which are profoundly unnatural, and this has led to the ineradicable |
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The 2019 Smiley Award Winner: Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
> I’m very pleased to announce that the 2019 Smiley Award goes to Fith, by
> Jeffrey Henning. You may know Jeffrey Henning from Langmaker.com (or if
> that reference is too old for you, you missed out!), but of course he's
> also done a lot of his own conlanging work. Fith is a much-discussed alien
> engelang which utilizes a stack-based grammar to great effect. You can read
My congratulations! Fith indeed is one of the most ingenious conlangs I
have ever encountered. The stack-based syntax is in fact simple and
the marsupial aliens is a bit silly IMHO and it may have been better to
present Fith as just what it is, namely an engelang based on a clearly
defined concept; it does not really need a concultural or conbiological
justification. (And nice to mention Shallow Fith in your laudatio ;).) |
From: Daniel Bensen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The 2019 Smiley Award Winner: Fith
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
I love Fith and now I understand it somewhat better :)
Thank you David!
> I’m very pleased to announce that the 2019 Smiley Award goes to Fith, by
> Jeffrey Henning. You may know Jeffrey Henning from Langmaker.com (or if
> that reference is too old for you, you missed out!), but of course he's
> also done a lot of his own conlanging work. Fith is a much-discussed alien
> engelang which utilizes a stack-based grammar to great effect. You can read |
From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: The 2019 Smiley Award Winner: Fith
I’m very pleased to announce that the 2019 Smiley Award goes to Fith, by
Jeffrey Henning. You may know Jeffrey Henning from Langmaker.com (or if
that reference is too old for you, you missed out!), but of course he's
also done a lot of his own conlanging work. Fith is a much-discussed alien
engelang which utilizes a stack-based grammar to great effect. You can read |
>> when in an RPN calculator you input terms and then the operation (or
>> in historic computer language Forth or conlang Fith by Jeffrey
>> Henning https://www.frathwiki.com/Fith ) |
> when in an RPN calculator you input terms and then the operation (or
> in historic computer language Forth or conlang Fith by Jeffrey
> Henning https://www.frathwiki.com/Fith ) |
> operation
> (or in historic computer language Forth or conlang Fith by Jeffrey Henning
> https://www.frathwiki.com/Fith ) |
language as when in an RPN calculator you input terms and then the operation
(or in historic computer language Forth or conlang Fith by Jeffrey Henning
https://www.frathwiki.com/Fith ) |
than positional arguments sometimes, but that doesn't change the
logic). So does Fith.
I don't know if anyone's written a BNF grammar for Fith, but it
wouldn't be hard. |
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Neo-Fith
Since I'm referencing Fith in "How to Note Verb", I've been trying to
scrounge up every bit of surviving internet documentation on Fith, and
find contact info for Jeffrey Henning so as to give him, like the rest
And, given the large underspecified areas in the latest version of
Fith that I could find documentation for (circa 2005), I am finding
myself re-inspired to write up a description of what I shall refer to
in an out-of-world context as "Neo-Fith", from the point of view of an
in-world field linguist attempting to describe all of the details of
modern colloquial Fith, filling in the gaps left by the original
Fithia expeditions.
Additionally, this would be accompanied by a description of the
newly-evolving Shallow Creole, mixing elements of colloquial Fith and
English to create a new language that is easily usable by both Humans |
>Zachary Weaver (Davin)
>Jeffrey Henning (Fith)
>Tom Breton (AllNoun) |
Zachary Weaver (Davin)
Jeffrey Henning (Fith)
Tom Breton (AllNoun) |
> Luiseño
> Fith
> Davin |
Luiseño
Fith
Davin |
>>> I'm not so sure. If you complete an utterance with `e` and there are no
>>> verbs, have you in fact a complete Fith sentence?
>>
>
> I was about to suggest the same, that Fith is probably underspecified in this regard, with respect to how much a 'nominal' stack-item is like a 'clausal' stack item, and how much one can behave like the other, and so forth. Mark was asking about trying to use a nominal as a clausal, and one could equally ask the other direction: what happens if you use a clause as an argument to another verb that is expecting a nominal there?
>
> I had an early project, my joint language with Robert Barrington-Leigh, which syntactically used simple reverse Polish notation, but through independent invention behaved in very much the same way as Fith in terms of the available constituent classes: that is, 'nominals' and 'clausals' were distinguished. To say it another way, some predicates exposed one of their arguments to their matrix clause, while others exposed an abstraction of the event. (There were some differences from Fith, e.g., adjectives were nouns and therefore nullary, not unary.) How to use nominals as clausals and vice versa was one of the first things we addressed, declaring that the nominal 'N' and the clausal 'N exists' would be the same. (This was a convenient identification in some places but less so in others, e.g. the naive 'I want pie' was forced to mean 'I want pie to exist'.) Even so, this structure quickly became limiting, and we ended up introducing a variety of other means to change which argument was exposed by various words. The overall effect was to leave me pessimistic about the whole approach, at least as a way to make something with loglangy qualities.
> |
>> I'm not so sure. If you complete an utterance with `e` and there are no
>> verbs, have you in fact a complete Fith sentence?
>
I was about to suggest the same, that Fith is probably underspecified in this regard, with respect to how much a 'nominal' stack-item is like a 'clausal' stack item, and how much one can behave like the other, and so forth. Mark was asking about trying to use a nominal as a clausal, and one could equally ask the other direction: what happens if you use a clause as an argument to another verb that is expecting a nominal there?
I had an early project, my joint language with Robert Barrington-Leigh, which syntactically used simple reverse Polish notation, but through independent invention behaved in very much the same way as Fith in terms of the available constituent classes: that is, 'nominals' and 'clausals' were distinguished. To say it another way, some predicates exposed one of their arguments to their matrix clause, while others exposed an abstraction of the event. (There were some differences from Fith, e.g., adjectives were nouns and therefore nullary, not unary.) How to use nominals as clausals and vice versa was one of the first things we addressed, declaring that the nominal 'N' and the clausal 'N exists' would be the same. (This was a convenient identification in some places but less so in others, e.g. the naive 'I want pie' was forced to mean 'I want pie to exist'.) Even so, this structure quickly became limiting, and we ended up introducing a variety of other means to change which argument was exposed by various words. The overall effect was to leave me pessimistic about the whole approach, at least as a way to make something with loglangy qualities. |
> I'm not so sure. If you complete an utterance with `e` and there are no
> verbs, have you in fact a complete Fith sentence?
>> On 26 June 2016 at 23:05, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > How can you analyze Fith as verbless?
>> |
I'm not so sure. If you complete an utterance with `e` and there are no
verbs, have you in fact a complete Fith sentence?
> On 26 June 2016 at 23:05, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > How can you analyze Fith as verbless?
> |
On 26 June 2016 at 23:05, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> How can you analyze Fith as verbless? |
| How can you analyze Fith as verbless? |
Kelen
Fith
UNLWS |
Sure. For instance, Fith is natural to hypothetical beings who have
neural circuitry to process stack structures in real time. In fact, the
grammar of Fith is wonderfully simple - far simpler than any human
language grammar! |
interesting conlang projects I know of, on a par with such things as
Fith or AllNoun. |
Right - common sense says that systems such as Esperanto, Ars signorum,
Lojban, Fith or Klingon are languages, even if they are artificially
constructed and no linguistician worth his stripes could mistake them |
>> but unless the design is flawed (or contains ideas that hinder its
>> usability on purpose, such as Fith), such an insufficiently developed
>> conlang has the potential of being expanded such that it becomes a usable |
> but unless the design is flawed (or contains ideas that hinder its
> usability on purpose, such as Fith), such an insufficiently developed
> conlang has the potential of being expanded such that it becomes a usable |
but unless the design is flawed (or contains ideas that hinder its
usability on purpose, such as Fith), such an insufficiently developed
conlang has the potential of being expanded such that it becomes a |
>>
>> So Esperanto, Occidental and Quenya are normal languages, while Fith
>> and Lojban are not.
>> five years.
> With that meaning? So Quenya and Esperanto would both be natlangoid conlangs but Lojban and Fith would not? If so, that’s not too bad. One wonders what the companion term would be, though. If one went with “artificial”, you’d get the unfortunate artlangoid, which makes it sound like it’s a kind of artlang…
So a "natlangoid" or a "natlang-like conlang" would be a conlang that
works like a natlang, e.g. Esperanto. Fith and Lojban would be
"natlang-unlike", or "non-natlangoids". "Artlangoid" is a poor |
> So Quenya and Esperanto would both be natlangoid conlangs but Lojban and
> Fith would not?
Yes, by the broader definition. By the narrower definition, which is not
the definition you're looking for a term for, Lojban and Fith both contain
elements of their grammar that are not natlangoid |
> With that meaning? So Quenya and Esperanto would both be natlangoid
> conlangs but Lojban and Fith would not? If so, that’s not too bad. One
> wonders what the companion term would be, though. If one went with |
| With that meaning? So Quenya and Esperanto would both be natlangoid conlangs but Lojban and Fith would not? If so, that’s not too bad. One wonders what the companion term would be, though. If one went with “artificial”, you’d get the unfortunate artlangoid, which makes it sound like it’s a kind of artlang… |
>>
>> So Esperanto, Occidental and Quenya are normal languages, while Fith and
>> Lojban are not. |
>
> So Esperanto, Occidental and Quenya are normal languages, while Fith and Lojban are not. |
So Esperanto, Occidental and Quenya are normal languages, while Fith and
Lojban are not. |
applied to Lojban.
Is Fith the same as Lojban? Definitely, no. |
> combinator-based language (like FORTH, or the non-programming-language
> conlang Fith) would be the best base, on top of which "idiomatic" |
> combinator-based language (like FORTH, or the non-programming-language
> conlang Fith) would be the best base, on top of which "idiomatic"
> flourishes could be added. |
combinator-based language (like FORTH, or the non-programming-language
conlang Fith) would be the best base, on top of which "idiomatic"
flourishes could be added. |
> somehow a way to avoid what *seems* obvious because maybe it's not and
> we're just fooled by our conventional thinking. I think Fith is not going
> to do it because it has nouns, adjectives, verbs etc. You should probably
>
> In Fith, the stack operators are likewise interesting. But you can't have
> the stack operators without the stack. So they again build on a common |
> somehow a way to avoid what *seems* obvious because maybe it's not and
> we're just fooled by our conventional thinking. I think Fith is not going
> to do it because it has nouns, adjectives, verbs etc. You should probably
>
> In Fith, the stack operators are likewise interesting. But you can't have
> the stack operators without the stack. So they again build on a common |
We should be looking at the underlying structures and see if there's somehow a way to avoid what *seems* obvious because maybe it's not and we're just fooled by our conventional thinking. I think Fith is not going to do it because it has nouns, adjectives, verbs etc. You should probably dig deeper, but I could be mistaken here.
In Fith, the stack operators are likewise interesting. But you can't have the stack operators without the stack. So they again build on a common structure. BTW the end operators e, i, o, u are obviously borrowed from natlang punctuation. They are however not necessary for the functionality of the grammar, even in terms of syntactic unambiguity, because the verb-last structure already tells you where the utterance ends. |
reception uses a shallow stack to parse utterances. But there's nothing
like the Fith stack operators.
> >
> > In fact, Fith is one of the things that convinces me that our language
> ability is part of general cognition, rather than a specialised black box.
> The reason Fith isn't human-speakable is due to a limit of general
> cognition - working memory.
>
> For Fith sans stack operators, yes. The stack operators involve mechanisms
> fundamentally alien to human lgs.
> wrote:
> > > Fith, thanks! That's a link I'd lost. As Gleki points out, the "last
> in, first out" principle gives a human-like structure although it's
> > >
> > > The Fith example seems to include some centre-embedding structure,
> which is S -> XSX, and with the additional rule | SS, it gives the
> >
> > That's not what makes Fith weird. Stack operators make Fith weird.
> > Dup, Swap, Rot, etc. These have no analogue in any known human
> > Nevertheless, its formal semantics are trivially simple, even though
> > "native Fith" requires working memory capabilities that humans just
> > straight-up don't possess. |
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Fith again (was: The ultimate language construction challenge)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
> That's not what makes Fith weird. Stack operators make Fith weird.
> Dup, Swap, Rot, etc. These have no analogue in any known human
> Nevertheless, its formal semantics are trivially simple, even though
> "native Fith" requires working memory capabilities that humans just
> straight-up don't possess.
Yep. Fith is indeed *simpler* than human languages, but it is simple in
a way that we can't cope with it, at least not in real time and not
> what about stack with low number of items in it? isn't it shallow fith?
Not quite. Shallow Fith removes all stack operators but four and
restricts the usage of those, such that they become something else: _du_
The point is to have a proper subset of Fith, which Fithians could parse
normally (for their species), while humans can parse it *without*
http://www.frathwiki.com/Shallow_Fith
Personally, I don't think that a language like Fith is likely to be
found in aliens, though. How would such a miraculously simple and |
| what about stack with low number of items in it? isn't it shallow fith? |
>
> In fact, Fith is one of the things that convinces me that our language
ability is part of general cognition, rather than a specialised black box.
The reason Fith isn't human-speakable is due to a limit of general
cognition - working memory.
For Fith sans stack operators, yes. The stack operators involve mechanisms
fundamentally alien to human lgs.
wrote:
> > Fith, thanks! That's a link I'd lost. As Gleki points out, the "last
in, first out" principle gives a human-like structure although it's
> >
> > The Fith example seems to include some centre-embedding structure,
which is S -> XSX, and with the additional rule | SS, it gives the simplest
>
> That's not what makes Fith weird. Stack operators make Fith weird.
> Dup, Swap, Rot, etc. These have no analogue in any known human
> Nevertheless, its formal semantics are trivially simple, even though
> "native Fith" requires working memory capabilities that humans just
> straight-up don't possess. |
>
> In fact, Fith is one of the things that convinces me that our language
ability is part of general cognition, rather than a specialised black box.
The reason Fith isn't human-speakable is due to a limit of general
cognition - working memory.
For Fith sans stack operators, yes. The stack operators involve mechanisms
fundamentally alien to human lgs.
wrote:
> > Fith, thanks! That's a link I'd lost. As Gleki points out, the "last
in, first out" principle gives a human-like structure although it's
> >
> > The Fith example seems to include some centre-embedding structure,
which is S -> XSX, and with the additional rule | SS, it gives the simplest
>
> That's not what makes Fith weird. Stack operators make Fith weird.
> Dup, Swap, Rot, etc. These have no analogue in any known human
> Nevertheless, its formal semantics are trivially simple, even though
> "native Fith" requires working memory capabilities that humans just
> straight-up don't possess. |
In fact, Fith is one of the things that convinces me that our language ability is part of general cognition, rather than a specialised black box. The reason Fith isn't human-speakable is due to a limit of general cognition - working memory.
On 22 February 2016 at 23:39, Patrik Austin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Fith, thanks! That's a link I'd lost. As Gleki points out, the "last in, first out" principle gives a human-like structure although it's topsy-turvy from English POV. But for instance placing the adjective after the head noun is familiar from French, Spanish, Russian etc., and verb-last is also utterly common.
>
> The Fith example seems to include some centre-embedding structure, which is S -> XSX, and with the additional rule | SS, it gives the simplest nonlinear grammar. This is basically the same as my old FL2 which is called FG2 ("fundamental grammar") in the article suggesting it's one of the most elementary structures in natlangs, although conversely actual centre-embedding seems to be rather limited in human languages. I haven't studied this subject properly, but I gave an example from Swedish.
That's not what makes Fith weird. Stack operators make Fith weird.
Dup, Swap, Rot, etc. These have no analogue in any known human
Nevertheless, its formal semantics are trivially simple, even though
"native Fith" requires working memory capabilities that humans just
straight-up don't possess. |
On 22 February 2016 at 23:39, Patrik Austin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Fith, thanks! That's a link I'd lost. As Gleki points out, the "last in, first out" principle gives a human-like structure although it's topsy-turvy from English POV. But for instance placing the adjective after the head noun is familiar from French, Spanish, Russian etc., and verb-last is also utterly common.
>
> The Fith example seems to include some centre-embedding structure, which is S -> XSX, and with the additional rule | SS, it gives the simplest nonlinear grammar. This is basically the same as my old FL2 which is called FG2 ("fundamental grammar") in the article suggesting it's one of the most elementary structures in natlangs, although conversely actual centre-embedding seems to be rather limited in human languages. I haven't studied this subject properly, but I gave an example from Swedish.
That's not what makes Fith weird. Stack operators make Fith weird.
Dup, Swap, Rot, etc. These have no analogue in any known human
Nevertheless, its formal semantics are trivially simple, even though
"native Fith" requires working memory capabilities that humans just
straight-up don't possess. |
Fith, thanks! That's a link I'd lost. As Gleki points out, the "last in, first out" principle gives a human-like structure although it's topsy-turvy from English POV. But for instance placing the adjective after the head noun is familiar from French, Spanish, Russian etc., and verb-last is also utterly common.
The Fith example seems to include some centre-embedding structure, which is S -> XSX, and with the additional rule | SS, it gives the simplest nonlinear grammar. This is basically the same as my old FL2 which is called FG2 ("fundamental grammar") in the article suggesting it's one of the most elementary structures in natlangs, although conversely actual centre-embedding seems to be rather limited in human languages. I haven't studied this subject properly, but I gave an example from Swedish. |
>
> >From Fith Cultural Notes:
> [...]
> bee, at least enough to make females four times more resource-consuming to
> bear, or each Fith has four fathers to their one mother, or evolution works
> differently there. For if a species that reproduced like humans had that |
>
> >From Fith Cultural Notes:
> [...]
> bee, at least enough to make females four times more resource-consuming to
> bear, or each Fith has four fathers to their one mother, or evolution works
> differently there. For if a species that reproduced like humans had that |
