Print

Print


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.