Clause Reform: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 7:

* What are the semantics of an underfilled verb?

Toaq's official answer to the first question is that clauses are greedy; they eat up as many arguments and adjuncts as they can get. However, experience with Toaq Delta leads me to believe that greediness impedes the language's usability. Because subordinate clauses look just like non-subordinate clauses, the grammar presents learners with a beautifully simple lie: that you can underfill any clause and include trailing adjuncts in any clause. Being perceptive loglangers, most will come to realize that the "real" grammar, the one that enforces greediness, looks more complicated~~, but this gap between the real grammar and the intuitive grammar that works 98% of the time is fairly large~~. ~~Greediness~~ becomes something you watch out for, not quite something you internalize.

Toaq's official answer to the first question is that clauses are greedy; they eat up as many arguments and adjuncts as they can get. However, experience with Toaq Delta leads me to believe that greediness impedes the language's usability. Because subordinate clauses look just like non-subordinate clauses, the grammar presents learners with a beautifully simple lie: that you can underfill any clause and include trailing adjuncts in any clause. Being perceptive loglangers, most will come to realize that the "real" grammar, the one that enforces greediness, looks more complicated. But greediness becomes something you watch out for, not quite something you internalize.

The theory behind this proposal (and likewise the [[Subclause Reform]]) is that giving up a little bit of convenience in order to simplify the grammar can be a very worthwhile tradeoff. This was what happened with [[auto-hóa]], for instance: for all the tinkering that was done, it turned out that a little bit of verbosity was what gave us the most intuitive and usable grammar.

Line 58:

Center-embedded clauses cannot have trailing adjuncts, and so we give up the [[Embedding Property]]. They are generated on the right periphery of clausal arguments. (I.e. in {{T|sá poq po kúe, ꝡë hao hóa}}, the relative clause is neither a constituent of the {{T|poq}} DP nor the {{T|kúe}} DP, but rather something that sits off to the side, as if it has undergone a minimal amount of extraposition.) The word {{T|có}} must be overt whenever it follows a center-embedded clause, almost as if it's a terminator. This is necessary in order to disambiguate between {{T|Aojaı póq, ꝡë cho hó sío, có, ꝡä hao júna, ꝡä luq tú}} and {{T|Aojaı póq, ꝡë cho hó sío, ꝡä hao júna, có, ꝡä luq tú}}.

== See also ==

* [https://robin.town/blog/sa-ea-buriaq Sa ea burıaq], also by [[User:Loekıa|Loekıa]], which incorporates ideas from Clause Reform into a more sweeping vision of Toaq

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 * What are the semantics of an underfilled verb?
-Toaq's official answer to the first question is that clauses are greedy; they eat up as many arguments and adjuncts as they can get. However, experience with Toaq Delta leads me to believe that greediness impedes the language's usability. Because subordinate clauses look just like non-subordinate clauses, the grammar presents learners with a beautifully simple lie: that you can underfill any clause and include trailing adjuncts in any clause. Being perceptive loglangers, most will come to realize that the "real" grammar, the one that enforces greediness, looks more complicated, but this gap between the real grammar and the intuitive grammar that works 98% of the time is fairly large. Greediness becomes something you watch out for, not quite something you internalize.
+Toaq's official answer to the first question is that clauses are greedy; they eat up as many arguments and adjuncts as they can get. However, experience with Toaq Delta leads me to believe that greediness impedes the language's usability. Because subordinate clauses look just like non-subordinate clauses, the grammar presents learners with a beautifully simple lie: that you can underfill any clause and include trailing adjuncts in any clause. Being perceptive loglangers, most will come to realize that the "real" grammar, the one that enforces greediness, looks more complicated. But greediness becomes something you watch out for, not quite something you internalize.
 The theory behind this proposal (and likewise the [[Subclause Reform]]) is that giving up a little bit of convenience in order to simplify the grammar can be a very worthwhile tradeoff. This was what happened with [[auto-hóa]], for instance: for all the tinkering that was done, it turned out that a little bit of verbosity was what gave us the most intuitive and usable grammar.
@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 Center-embedded clauses cannot have trailing adjuncts, and so we give up the [[Embedding Property]]. They are generated on the right periphery of clausal arguments. (I.e. in {{T|sá poq po kúe, ꝡë hao hóa}}, the relative clause is neither a constituent of the {{T|poq}} DP nor the {{T|kúe}} DP, but rather something that sits off to the side, as if it has undergone a minimal amount of extraposition.) The word {{T|có}} must be overt whenever it follows a center-embedded clause, almost as if it's a terminator. This is necessary in order to disambiguate between {{T|Aojaı póq, ꝡë cho hó sío, có, ꝡä hao júna, ꝡä luq tú}} and {{T|Aojaı póq, ꝡë cho hó sío, ꝡä hao júna, có, ꝡä luq tú}}.
+== See also ==
+* [https://robin.town/blog/sa-ea-buriaq Sa ea burıaq], also by [[User:Loekıa|Loekıa]], which incorporates ideas from Clause Reform into a more sweeping vision of Toaq