Logan Kearsley, On 13/07/2012 00:38:
> On 12 July 2012 17:26, Alex Fink<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
> [...]
>> But Katanda does something like your option 3, you say (I don't see much crucial difference), and Sai has always wanted to use the idea, and I've seen some byte-based project whose name I forget that does it, and so forth.
>> One could perhaps generalize this so that there aren't just a set of disjoint domains and that's that, but rather a tree of domains, with a progressively longer form needed to switch to a word whose least common ancestor with the current one is farther up the tree.  Or a system like that but with multiple current topics.
> This is what I call the namespace approach. In theory, Gogido was
> supposed to be constructed this way, but I've never gotten around to
> actually defining the namespaces. Borrowing from how it works in, say,
> Java, every phrase has a syntactic slot for a namespace, which you can
> use to give a more-or-less specified 'path' to the correct set of
> definitions. If it's empty, then the namespace is inherited from the
> parent phrase in the syntax tree, with sentences inheriting from the
> last namespace employed as a discourse-level particle. Namespaces are
> an open lexical class, and can be expanded just by giving a new
> definition for a word with the new namespace specified. Namespaces
> would be actively extended to accommodate jargons.

Alex & Logan, could you each give a couple of examples, so I can better grock what you're getting at? Logan's idea eludes me completely. I think I get Alex's, but it'd be nice to see a sketch of an actual morphological implementation.

Returning to the theme of methods for achieving morphological and syntactic concision, here are two further thoughts:

1. I have decided to change Livagian so that
a. For each arity/adicity greater than 1, there is no more than 1 predicate with that arity/adicity:
dyadic: "x1 is a property of x2"
triadic: "x1 is a relation holding between x2 and x3"
tetradic: "x1 is a relation holding between x2, x3 and x4"
... and so on. X1/x2/x3/x4 are morphosyntactically and semantically distinct,
b. All other predicates are monadic:
"x1 is the property of sneezing"
"x1 is the relation of loving"
"x1 is the relation between a blade-wielding cutter, a cuttee and a blade"
[In this account, I have for simplicity's sake ignored Davidsonian event arguments]
This means that to say "A loves B and C loves D", "love" need not be repeated: "y1 is loving, y1 is a relation holding between x2=y2 and x3=y3 and y1 is a relation holding between x2=y4 and x3=y5".
You can also define complex properties syntactically, so "A thinks B owes C D and E thinks B owes C E" can be expressed as: "x1 is the relation such that x2 thinks B owes C x3, and x1 holds between y1=x2 and y2=x3 and x1 holds between y3=x2 and y4=x3".

2. In my past work on Livagian, I found that the major causes of verbosity are (i) the morphological expression of predicate--argument structure far more than the morphological expression of predicate content, and (ii) semantically decompositional syntax (e.g. "cause to die" rather than "kill"), which proliferates predicates and requires the encoding of much concomitant predicate--argument structure. (Livagian is a spoken language; if it had a two-dimensional graphical phonology, like UNLWS, then the verbosity problem would disappear.)