On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:53:18 -0800 Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > ---snip--- > > Keep in mind that my motive has nothing to do with the study of > linguistics and everything to do with the engineering of a > computerized conlang translation program. The reason for the > method is code efficiency in C++, not "understanding" parts of > speech. It's a wrench, not a microscope. > > For programming purposes the method is extremely useful, but for > the purpose of describing the algorithm I can't use existing terms > like "parts of speech" without misleading the reader. Thus the > need for a new term. > > So the question is not "does the method work?" For programming > purposes, it does. The questions is, what shall I call it? > > ---snip--- > Who would your audience be? Confusing them least would depend on their background. I did something (possibly) similar and ended up with 'Objects' (mostly nouns) 'Descriptors' (mostly adjectives and adverbs) and 'Relationships' (everything else, including verbs). One might guess that I have a background in data modeling. I don't know if this will help, but you can see the upshot here. http://instrumentation.conlang.org/instspeak.html#syntax Ralph -- Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style? They haven't decided what it looks like yet.