Print

Print


I wonder if humans with electronic brain enhancements will be able to speak
Fith easier. I'm willing to try, just as soon as I get that sort of
enhancement.

stevo

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Sunday 25 September 2011 16:10:42, R A Brown wrote:
>
> > On 24/09/2011 18:19, And Rosta wrote:
> > > R A Brown, On 24/09/2011 08:33:
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> ....... It was not Jeffrey Henning's intention that
> > >> Fith be human-usable and AFAIK it is _generally_
> > >> accepted that full blown Fith is not. I really need to
> > >>
> > >>  see firm evidence to the contrary and, so far, I have
> > >>  not seen it.
> > >
> > > It can also be demonstrated that full-blown English is
> > > not human-usable either.
> >
> > How? What on earth is "full blown English"???
>
> A theoretical concept dreamt up by And Rosta, and utterly
> irrelevant to the linguistic analysis of English, or to
> linguistics in general ;)
>
> >  From the context it should have been obvious that by "full
> > blown Fith" I meant Fith as designed by Jeffrey Henning as
> > opposed to 'Shallow Fith.'
>
> Right.  "Full-blown Fith" is Fith proper, with all its stack
> operators and unlimited stack depth, as opposed to Shallow
> Fith.  There is nothing that is to "ordinary" English what
> Fith proper is to Shallow Fith, so the term "Full-blown
> English" as used by And Rosta is meaningless.  English is
> not a stripped-down, depth-limited derivative of anything
> else, so there is no point in naming that "anything else"
> "Full-blown English" or whatever.
>
> >       The latter, as it's author
> > states, "is a proper subset of Fith, with strict limits to
> > stack depth and with most of the stack operators removed";
> > its "sentences could be parsed as
> > SOV/postposition/noun-adjective sentences by humans and as
> > very simple LIFO sentences by Fithians."
>
> Just that.
>
> > By "full blown Fith" I mean, of course, Fith without stack
> > depth limitation and with all the stack operators defined by
> > its author.
>
> Certainly.
>
> > To me English, synchronically, are all the manifestations,
> > whether spoken or written, of those who currently speak
> > English as their L1 or, if fluent, as their L2 or L3
> > (trilingualism being relatively common outside of the
> > monoglot anglophone world).  To talk of some prescriptive
> > "full blown" English makes no sense to me.
>
> Especially when it comes to an artificial abstraction from
> prescriptive grammars of English ...
>
> > ========================================================
> >
> > On 25/09/2011 11:46, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > > Hallo conlangers!
> >
> > > On Saturday 24 September 2011 21:59:31, R A Brown wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> But I do have some experience with natural language
> > >> processing by computer and, unless things have
> > >> radically changed since I retired, the poor Von
> > >> Neumann machines do not find natlangs particularly
> > >> easy!
> > >
> > > Indeed not!  This of course also means that a Fithian
> > > would perhaps have as much difficulty with English (or
> > > any other human language) as a human being with Fith.
> >
> > That seems a likely scenario to me.
>
> Yes.  Stack-based languages can be parsed very efficiently
> by fairly simple software, which is the precise reason why
> Forth, PostScript, HP pocket calculators and several other
> applications use a stack-based syntax - it makes their
> implementation easier and more efficient.  Parsing human
> languages with computers is much harder.  We can only
> speculate what kind of neural circuitry Fithians use to
> comprehend their language, but it may be much simpler than
> ours.  At any rate, it is *different*, and thus human
> languages should be as difficult to them as stack-based
> languages are to us.
>
> > > Given the fact that the stack is the simplest of all
> > > compound data structures,  which is the exact reason why
> > >
> > >  programming language such as Forth use it,
> >
> > ...it was, of course, the programming language Forth, that
> > inspired Jeffrey to construct Fith     ;)
>
> Yep.
>
> > > the Fithian language facility may be of a very simple yet
> > > effective kind - effective for parsing stack-based
> > > languages, but failing at human languages.
> >
> > This may very well be true.
> >
> > > And's argument about Fithians being better at parsing
> > > English than native speakers of English thus fails.  But
> > > alas, we don't have any Fithians at our disposal to test
> > > these hypotheses.
> >
> > Alas not - which IMO makes all the arguments about whether
> > Fithians would be better or worse at parsing English than L1
> > anglophones a bit pointless.
>
> Indeed.  One could theorize without end about what a Fithian
> could do or not do, but, alas, Fithians do not exist in the
> real world, thus there is no way testing such ideas.  It is
> like debating how many angels could dance on the tip of a pin.
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> You are quite right - the way to test it is for two (or
> > >> more) people to learn it and try to use properly (*not*
> > >> in the Shallow Fith version) it as a spoken language.
> > >> (Written would be no good as it would give time for one
> > >> to work through the stacks and puzzle the thing out).
> > >
> > > Right.  And I guess that they will fail, and end up
> > > actually speaking something like Shallow Fith, avoiding
> > > those parts of the language that are difficult or
> > > impossible to handle; but before we can be sure about
> > > that, that experiment needs first to be carried out in
> > > practice.
> >
> > Yep - no one in this thread, as far as I see, has denied the
> > possibility of some sort of human-usable stack-based
> > language.  After all, Forth programmers and even LISP
> > programmers are human   ;)
>
> Sure.  But programming does not require real-time
> conversationality.
>
> > Your own 'Shallow Fith' is expressly designed to be
> > human-usable.
>
> It is meant to be, and I hope I have succeeded.
>
> > The argument is about Fith itself with no restriction on
> > stack depth and a whole load stack operators; see
> > http://www.langmaker.com/stackconj.htm
> >
> > Until/ Unless we get people actually using Fith as a spoken
> > means of communication, we cannot tell how well humans would
> > cope with the language designed for a race of alien
> > marsupials     ;)
>
> Yep.
>
> --
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> "Bęsel asa Ęm, a Ęm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Ęmel." - SiM 1:1
>