Back in my day...

Solonoid | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Jx493
PSN: Jx493
Steam: Jx493
ID: Solonoid
IP: Logged

13,463 posts
 
We put a TL;DR after an insurmountable wall of text.

I've written some long, ranty threads before.
Not so much on Sep7, but it was kind of my style to rant endlessly circumlocutively on b.net, and the majority of the time I posted a TL;DR.

Now, this seems to be foregone on Serious, as there is a rule against stating that you are too lazy to read the OP, or a response. Obviously, it would be improper conduct to come onto this forum and state that you are not going to take someone seriously, and do not want to pay enough attention to them or don't have enough courtesy to read what they have to say, but at some point it becomes nauseating to the onlooker who wants to get the jist of what's being talked about without becoming deeply involved in it.

I do a lot more lurking on Serious than I do posting, and I would like to spectate a conversation and decide whether or not I want to devote an hour to really becoming immersed in the topic, but as it stands I often find myself skimming threads with little objectality and leaving them with only as much idea what to think about it than when I came in.

I'm not saying that every time you post something you need to provide a summary, but in the very least if you post a 2000 word OP you might provide the short and sweet version at the end.

I'm not looking for enforcement or anything, but it would be nice if you could consider this, as an act of courtesy.

TL;DR: Y'all cunts like yer fookin' walls a' texts


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,050 posts
i also dislike reading big walls of nothing

concision is paramount


Mattie G Indahouse | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: BerzerkCommando
PSN: BerzerkCommando
Steam: BerzerkCommando
ID: BerzerkCommando
IP: Logged

9,047 posts
Did he say glass of juice or gas the Jews?
👶🏽:h..

👨🏽:honey, he's gonna say his first words

👩🏽:!!

👶🏽:hhh...

👶🏽:here come dat boi 🐸!

👨🏽:o shit waddup 😂💯

👩🏽:💔
Back in my grandpa's day he had to walk 10 miles to get to school each day. Even in the rain or snow he had to do that.
Spoiler
That's why you never buy a Ford.
 


ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: TrussingDoor
IP: Logged

7,667 posts
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us'."
-Saint Anthony the Great
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Girl of Mystery | Mythic Unfrigginbelievable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: TheBritishLemon
IP: Logged

23,349 posts
A flower which blooms on the battlefield
i also dislike reading big walls of nothing
90% of Santrap's posts


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,050 posts
at least sandtrap's syntax makes it interesting to read


BrenMan 94 | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL: BrenMan 94
PSN:
Steam: BrenMan 94
ID: BrenMan 94
IP: Logged

1,886 posts
 
at least sandtrap's syntax makes it interesting to read
Sorry I don't speak calculator.


 
Sandtrap
| Mythic Sage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Sandtrap
IP: Logged

11,702 posts
Rockets on my X
at least sandtrap's syntax makes it interesting to read
Sorry I don't speak calculator.

In linguistics, syntax is the set of rules, principles, and processes that govern the structure of sentences in a given language. The term syntax is also used to refer to the study of such principles and processes.[1] The goal of many syntacticians is to discover the syntactic rules common to all languages.

In mathematics, syntax refers to the rules governing the behavior of mathematical systems, such as formal languages used in logic. (See logical syntax.)

Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Early history
3 Modern theories
3.1 Generative grammar
3.2 Categorial grammar
3.3 Dependency grammar
3.4 Stochastic/probabilistic grammars/network theories
3.5 Functionalist grammars
4 See also
4.1 Syntactic terms
5 Notes
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links
Etymology[edit]
From Ancient Greek: σύνταξις "coordination" from σύν syn, "together," and τάξις táxis, "an ordering".

Early history[edit]
Works on grammar were written long before modern syntax came about; the Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini (c. 4th century BC) is often cited as an example of a premodern work that approaches the sophistication of a modern syntactic theory.[2] In the West, the school of thought that came to be known as "traditional grammar" began with the work of Dionysius Thrax.

For centuries, work in syntax was dominated by a framework known as grammaire générale, first expounded in 1660 by Antoine Arnauld in a book of the same title. This system took as its basic premise the assumption that language is a direct reflection of thought processes and therefore there is a single, most natural way to express a thought.

However, in the 19th century, with the development of historical-comparative linguistics, linguists began to realize the sheer diversity of human language and to question fundamental assumptions about the relationship between language and logic. It became apparent that there was no such thing as the most natural way to express a thought, and therefore logic could no longer be relied upon as a basis for studying the structure of language.

The Port-Royal grammar modeled the study of syntax upon that of logic. (Indeed, large parts of the Port-Royal Logic were copied or adapted from the Grammaire générale.[3]) Syntactic categories were identified with logical ones, and all sentences were analyzed in terms of "Subject – Copula – Predicate." Initially, this view was adopted even by the early comparative linguists such as Franz Bopp.

The central role of syntax within theoretical linguistics became clear only in the 20th century, which could reasonably be called the "century of syntactic theory" as far as linguistics is concerned. (For a detailed and critical survey of the history of syntax in the last two centuries, see the monumental work by Giorgio Graffi (2001).)[4]

Modern theories[edit]
There are a number of theoretical approaches to the discipline of syntax. One school of thought, founded in the works of Derek Bickerton,[5] sees syntax as a branch of biology, since it conceives of syntax as the study of linguistic knowledge as embodied in the human mind. Other linguists (e.g., Gerald Gazdar) take a more Platonistic view, since they regard syntax to be the study of an abstract formal system.[6] Yet others (e.g., Joseph Greenberg) consider syntax a taxonomical device to reach broad generalizations across languages.

Generative grammar[edit]
Main article: Generative grammar
The hypothesis of generative grammar is that language is a structure of the human mind. The goal of generative grammar is to make a complete model of this inner language (known as i-language). This model could be used to describe all human language and to predict the grammaticality of any given utterance (that is, to predict whether the utterance would sound correct to native speakers of the language). This approach to language was pioneered by Noam Chomsky. Most generative theories (although not all of them) assume that syntax is based upon the constituent structure of sentences. Generative grammars are among the theories that focus primarily on the form of a sentence, rather than its communicative function.

Among the many generative theories of linguistics, the Chomskyan theories are:

Transformational grammar (TG) (Original theory of generative syntax laid out by Chomsky in Syntactic Structures in 1957)[7]
Government and binding theory (GB) (revised theory in the tradition of TG developed mainly by Chomsky in the 1970s and 1980s)[8]
Minimalist program (MP) (a reworking of the theory out of the GB framework published by Chomsky in 1995)[9]
Other theories that find their origin in the generative paradigm are:

Arc pair grammar
Generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG; now largely out of date)
Generative semantics (now largely out of date)
Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG)
Lexical functional grammar (LFG)
Nanosyntax
Relational grammar (RG) (now largely out of date)
Categorial grammar[edit]
Main article: Categorial grammar
Categorial grammar is an approach that attributes the syntactic structure not to rules of grammar, but to the properties of the syntactic categories themselves. For example, rather than asserting that sentences are constructed by a rule that combines a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP) (e.g., the phrase structure rule S → NP VP), in categorial grammar, such principles are embedded in the category of the head word itself. So the syntactic category for an intransitive verb is a complex formula representing the fact that the verb acts as a function word requiring an NP as an input and produces a sentence level structure as an output. This complex category is notated as (NP\S) instead of V. NP\S is read as "a category that searches to the left (indicated by \) for an NP (the element on the left) and outputs a sentence (the element on the right)." The category of transitive verb is defined as an element that requires two NPs (its subject and its direct object) to form a sentence. This is notated as (NP/(NP\S)) which means "a category that searches to the right (indicated by /) for an NP (the object), and generates a function (equivalent to the VP) which is (NP\S), which in turn represents a function that searches to the left for an NP and produces a sentence."

Tree-adjoining grammar is a categorial grammar that adds in partial tree structures to the categories.

Dependency grammar[edit]
Main article: Dependency grammar

A syntactic parse of "Alfred spoke" under the dependency formalism
Dependency grammar is an approach to sentence structure where syntactic units are arranged according to the dependency relation, as opposed to the constituency relation of phrase structure grammars. Dependencies are directed links between words. The (finite) verb is seen as the root of all clause structure and all the other words in the clause are either directly or indirectly dependent on this root. Some prominent dependency-based theories of syntax are:

Recursive categorical syntax, or Algebraic syntax
Functional generative description
Meaning–text theory
Operator grammar
Word grammar
Lucien Tesnière (1893–1954) is widely seen as the father of modern dependency-based theories of syntax and grammar. He argued vehemently against the binary division of the clause into subject and predicate that is associated with the grammars of his day (S → NP VP) and which remains at the core of most phrase structure grammars. In the place of this division, he positioned the verb as the root of all clause structure.[10]

Stochastic/probabilistic grammars/network theories[edit]
Theoretical approaches to syntax that are based upon probability theory are known as stochastic grammars. One common implementation of such an approach makes use of a neural network or connectionism. Some theories based within this approach are:

Optimality theory[citation needed]
Stochastic context-free grammar
Functionalist grammars[edit]
Main article: Functional theories of grammar
Functionalist theories, although focused upon form, are driven by explanation based upon the function of a sentence (i.e. its communicative function). Some typical functionalist theories include:

Cognitive grammar
Construction grammar (CxG)
Emergent grammar
Functional discourse grammar (Dik)
Prague linguistic circle
Role and reference grammar (RRG)
Systemic functional grammar


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,050 posts
at least sandtrap's syntax makes it interesting to read
Sorry I don't speak calculator.
it's the way he types

it's the text equivalent of dialect


 
Sandtrap
| Mythic Sage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Sandtrap
IP: Logged

11,702 posts
Rockets on my X
at least sandtrap's syntax makes it interesting to read
Sorry I don't speak calculator.
it's the way he types

it's the text equivalent of dialect

Derailing the topic, maybe. If I spoke how I've currently adopted writing to make up for potholes in my head. Which, I do. I'd sound stupid.

I don't talk much anymore. Very little dialect going on.