3 ms·
Strictly speaking natural languages fit into Context-Sensitive (Type-1) in Chomsky Hierarchy, but that's too broad to be useful. In practice they are classifie
by nabla9 10mo ago
Strictly speaking natural languages fit into Context-Sensitive (Type-1) in Chomsky Hierarchy, but that's too broad to be useful.
In practice they are classified into MCSL (Mildly Context-Sensitive) subcategory defined by Aravind K. Joshi.
- krnlclnl 10mo agoSure, if you accept and agree with Joshi. No reason to do that though, except to validate some random persons perspective on language. The sky will not open and smash us with a giant foot if we reject such an obligation.
- nabla9 10mo agoNatural languages being in MCSL (Mildly Context-Sensitive) is the consensus among linguistics, not some random individual's viewpoint.
- krnlclnl 10mo agoOK? What concrete human problems human biology faces are resolved by this groups consensus? Obsession with notation does little to improve crop yields, or improve working conditions for the child labor these academic geniuses rely on. Sure, linguists, glad you found some semantics that fit your obsession. Happy for you! Most people will never encounter their work and live their lives never knowing such an event happened.
- suddenlybananas 10mo agoYou can also reject quantum physics and the sky will not open and smash us with a giant foot. However, to do so without serious knowledge of physics would be quite dumb.
- krnlclnl 10mo agoApples and oranges. Language emerges from human biology which emerges from the physical realm. In the end language emerges then from the physical realm. Trying to de-couple it from physical nature and make it an abstract thought bubble is akin to bike shedding in programming.
- suddenlybananas 10mo agoYou could say this about literally anything.