On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 03:37:33PM -0700, Dan Brian wrote:
> > I must walk the god. (Subject modal-verb action-verb direct-object.)
> > A german-speaker would say:
> > I must the god walk. (Subject modal-verb direct-object action-verb.)
> "The god I must walk", "walk the god I must", etc. They aren't immediately
> familiar, but they are grammatical.
"The god I must walk" is grammatical, but wierd, english.
"Walk the god I must" isn't grammatical. The modal verb must always come
before the active verb.
However, "I must walk the god" --> $me->must({walk($god)});
"I must the god walk" --> $me->must({$god->walk})
"The god I must walk" --> $god->walk($me) :must
"Walk the god I must" --> walk($god, $me) :must
(BTW, I'm using {}s as coderef creators, which I probably shouldn't do)
Notice how I had to use the attribute syntax for the second two? That's
because they are mangled. In every other case, I've got straight subrotune
calls, with some infinitive verb-phrases thrown in. 1 uses function syntax
on the inside, 2 uses object syntax. 3 & 4 use attribute syntax on a
function call, which I just pulled out of my as^H^Hhat.
> You're saying that it would be more natural for an English speaker to say,
> "Sort numerically this list", as opposed to "sort this list numerically"?
> I disagree; the latter is more natural for English speakers.
Blast. There goes that theory.
> Consider 'print':
> print FILEHANDLE data;
> This isn't the most intuitive form for English speakers, who would tend to
> say:
> "Print this data to this filehandle."
> Rather than:
> "Print to this filehandle this data.
That's simply because "print" doesn't take an indirect object in English.
That's why I prefer $fh->print to print $fh.
Give, for example, does.
I'd say "Give the ball to Jake" and "Give Jake the ball" equaly. These are
give($ball, $jake) and give $jake $ball. But notice how the paremeters got
flipped? This is why perl is difficult for languages with different
word-order then english.
> Well, then don't think of them that way. :) Perl objects of the class
> variety are direct objects, indirect objects, subjects, and even verbs if
> $_[0] is discarded in methods. It's true they are most commonly subjects,
> but can be used as most anything. Isn't that great?
Yah, that's absolutely true. However, in the most clasic sense, we do think
of them as being subjects. (Look at perlboot, or pretty much any other oo
primer.) You can always use a noun as any of the above, except verbs. And
I don't think that a object can be a verb (other then the infinitive, IE
nounal, form of a verb).
C<Cow->speak> and C<speak Cow> both translate into english as a command
form, telling the Cow to speak. (If you translate both -> and ' ' into a
comma.)
Anyway, I'm trying to argue lingustics in a perl ML, with zero training.
Is there a linguist in the house? (Hm, didn't Larry go to Japan to learn a
language with wierd word-order?) (What's up with Larry, anyway? Any
preliminary RFC responces?)
-=- James Mastros
--
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger,
who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapt in awe, is as good as dead.
-=- Albert Einstein
AIM: theorbtwo homepage: http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
