PEG Morphology Algorithm
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 05:24:50PM -0800, Clark & Janiece Nelson
wrote:
> >>For the sake of modularity and reducing point-complexity, I
> >>think it would be worth considering splitting the job into its
> >>components, and writing separate grammars:
> >
> >The problem with this is that we could argue for hours over where
> >the seperations lie. I was vehemently opposed to seperating out
> >the morphology from the rest of the grammar in the first place,
> >in fact.
>
> Well, of course if one (very influential) partipant is "vehemently
> opposed" to any separation, then any proposal for separation would
> necessarily either be rejected immediately, or result in hours of
> argument. 
Indeed.
I feel it's worth stating *why* I'm opposed.
I don't want people to need to understand the divisions we're
creating to try to understand how the language works. I think that
even "morphology" versus "grammar" is artificial and arbitrary, and
I don't think people should have to go to two places to get their
questions answered.
It's not really all that important, though.
-Robin