Search

Khami is one of the most important Sino-Tibetan languages because of the extensive data it presents regarding prefixes, preserved in so few groups of that linguistic family. The Khimi described here is a subdialect of the Southern dialect of the Khami language, Kukish group, Burmic division of Sino-Tibetan. Phonetically it differs from the more commonly recorded Southern dialect chiefly in the pronunciation of an original-a as -aw(as in Englishawe).

A comprehensive system for transformational grammar has been designed and implemented on the IBM 360/67 computer. The system deals with the transformational model of syntax, along the lines of Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax . The major innovations include a full, formal description of the syntax of a transformational grammar, a directed random phrase structure generator, a lexical insertion algorithm, an extended definition of analysis, and a simple problem-oriented programming language in which the algorithm for application of transformations can be expressed. In this paper we present the system as a whole, first discussing the general attitudes underlying the development of the system, then outlining the system and discussing its more important special features. References are given to papers which consider some particular aspect of the system in detail.

THE origin of the Melanesian and Polynesian pronouns is really a problem for the specialist; in itself it holds neither interest nor profit for any but scholars in those languages. The wider public cannot be plagued with small details: it awaits the more vital conclusions and leaves the experts to discuss the minute demonstrations that lead up to those conclusions. Through some accident however these pronouns have caught the eye of the philosopher who thought to find in them proof and illustration of a psychological doctrine. Following his example the culture-fusionist seized upon them to support a different view altogether. Thus by luck they have attained to a theoretical importance to which intrinsic merit scarcely entitles them. Few problems as concrete as this one have been treated both by the psychological and by the culture-fusion schools. These pronouns provide us therefore with an excellent touchstone of the methods and assumptions of both schools; the more so as the material is linguistic; for our information about languages is vastly more detailed than about customs and beliefs, and moreover language has long been subject to an exactness of treatment to which no other branch of ethnology has yet approached. Such are my reasons for appealing in this paper to the ethnologist in general and for hoping that he will patiently labor through details of grammar that do not interest him, for the sake of methods and principles that do. THE PROBLEM

Two schemes for the specification of translations on a context-free grammar are proposed. The first scheme, called a generalized syntax directed translation (GSDT), consists of a context free grammar with a set of semantic rules associated with each production of the grammar. In a GSDT an input word is parsed according to the underlying context free grammar, and at each node of the tree, a finite number of translation strings are computed in terms of the translation strings defined at the descendants of that node. The functional relationship between the length of input and length of output for translations defined by GSDT's is investigated. The second method for the specification of translations is in terms of tree automata - finite automata with output, operating on derivation trees of a context free grammar. It is shown that tree automata provide an exact characterization for those GSDT's with a linear relationship between input and output length.

The following discussion will argue that there is a grammar of coherence (or form, for in the following, the two terms are virtually synonymous.) If one perceives form in discourse, he also perceives coherence, for form is the internal set of consistent relationships in any stretch of discourse, whether poem, play, essay, oration, or whatever. This set of relationships-like the relationships that rules of grammar describe-must be finite in number; otherwise: formlessness, for the very concepts of form and coherence imply a finite number of relationships that can be perceived. (A generative grammar implies a finite number of rules, some of which may be applied recursively.) Following the model of grammar, one might look for some sort of "constituent structure rules" that underlie coherent utterances beyond the sentence, and then for the equivalent of "lexical rules," and finally for something approximating "transformational rules." In a very rough, loosely analogous way, the following discussion concentrates only on the "phrase structure rules" of coherence and, as a result, excludes "lexical" data which is undoubtedly significant. For instance, one reason that a paragraph "hangs together" or is a convention is that chains of equivalent words run through it. A switch in equivalence chains signals: new paragraph.2 The present discussion

A few remarks are given on the relations between syntax and semantics in the programming languages. The aim is to point out that, it is true that the grammar of a contex-free language should be conceived not only as a strings-generating device but also as a method for expressing a meaning, then the grammar of ALGOL is open to some criticism.

5 yt tHAT little we know of the grammar of spoken English is based on V w unsystematic impressions of what we hear and on the unsubstantiated assumption that the grammar of the spoken language must be essentially that of the written. Before we can hope to get an authentic grammar of spoken English there are two steps we must take. One of them is obvious: we must have a sufficient body of recorded evidence of actual spoken usage to permit systematic analysis. The other step is less apparent, but a necessary prerequisite. The grammar of spoken English must be based on a far more objective analysis of the evidence than has characterized the analysis of written English. I shall attempt, therefore, to substantiate my assertion that much of the best scholarly work in Ena lish grammatical analysis has lacked that necessary objectivity. By the grammar of spoken English I mean a complete and consistent description of every aspect and variety of the spoken English language. Since the preparation of such a description seems not only improbable but impossible, I must explain why I postulate such a conception. The fundamental reason is this: if we assume that the function of language is communication, we must conclude that that is language which performs this function, and that is not language but a mere counterfeit which fails to perform this function. Let me hasten to illustrate my definition. Such examples as 'I seen the botllen of 'm,' 'Them dogs are us'n's,' 'I'll call you up, without I can't,'2 all perform the required function for me and must therefore be explained by our ideal grammar. On the other lland, the utterances of those to whom English is not vernacular are sometimes so un-English in their arrangements of sounds and words as to be quite incomprehensible. Such language we need not consider and may dismiss as counterfeit. I must now amplify the definition of grammar as the systematic description of a language. A description which merely enumerates is of little value. The parts list for an automobile does in a sense describe the car, but it is only the engineer's blueprint, in which all those parts are assem