On 2013-01-04 at 23:02:41 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> On Friday 04 January 2013 21:38:23 R A Brown wrote:
> > On 04/01/2013 15:30, And Rosta wrote:
> > > Jörg Rhiemeier, On 04/01/2013 13:18:
> > >> Stack-based grammars are very economical with regard to
> > >> rules (which is the reason they are sometimes used in
> > >> computing), but require a prodigious short- term memory
> > >> in order to handle the stack properly (which computers
> > >> of course have).

Don't you need lots of short-term memory to parse complex 
SOV sentences such as those common in *literary* German?

Actually, in my youth I've been guilty of a few monstruosity in 
Latin influenced written Italian, and they did require 
quite some short-term memory to parse, even if they were "simple" 

> Yep.  The stack of an RPN calculator never holds anything else
> than *numbers*, i.e. "semantic objects".  The human language
> faculty, in contrast, certainly stores not only words but also
> phrases and clauses, i.e. syntactic objects.  (But the stack
> of a Fithian also holds syntactic objects.  

the stack of an RPN *programming language* interpreter can hold 
list of expressions (used to define functions, for conditional 
clauses, etc.)

e.g. in postscript (the only RPN language I have used)::

    /Square {
        0 1 4 {
           dup 2 mod 0 eq {
               100 0 rlineto
           } {
               0 100 rlineto
           } ifelse
        } for
    } def

    0 0 Square stroke

(this defines a function that draws a square and calls it.)

Once the interpreter gets to the ``def`` the actual function is 
stored elsewhere, but everything else is kept and used in the stack.

Elena ``of Valhalla''