How old is the "link grammar" concept? My conlang works this way but I wasn't aware this already existed as a concept. Até mais! Leonardo 2013/1/27 Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>: > I agree for conlang purposes. Link grammars are kind of fun to play > with, though. They do have some problems, especially using > conjunctions. A sentence like "He stole the tarts and ran away." can't > be parsed with their link grammar because "ran" doesn't have a subject > that can be linked without crossing lines. So they have to make a > special "cheat" pass to resolve those kinds of problems. That makes it > less than elegant as far as I'm concerned. > > --gary > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Sheets <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached natural >> and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's >> definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it definitely has >> a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages). Seems >> to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't >> explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm >> biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my own >> conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that >> grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is >> separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving only >> context clues in the lexicon.