How old is the "link grammar" concept? My conlang works this way but I
wasn't aware this already existed as a concept.
2013/1/27 Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>:
> I agree for conlang purposes. Link grammars are kind of fun to play
> with, though. They do have some problems, especially using
> conjunctions. A sentence like "He stole the tarts and ran away." can't
> be parsed with their link grammar because "ran" doesn't have a subject
> that can be linked without crossing lines. So they have to make a
> special "cheat" pass to resolve those kinds of problems. That makes it
> less than elegant as far as I'm concerned.
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Sheets <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached natural
>> and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's
>> definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it definitely has
>> a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages). Seems
>> to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't
>> explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm
>> biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my own
>> conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that
>> grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is
>> separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving only
>> context clues in the lexicon.