Changes

<br>

<br>

In this version of a grammar for <math>\mathfrak{L} = \mathfrak{C} (\mathfrak{P}),</math> the intermediate type <math>T\!</math> is partitioned as <math>T = \underline\varepsilon + T',</math> thereby parsing the intermediate symbol <math>T\!</math> in parallel fashion with the division of its overlying type as <math>S = \underline\varepsilon + S'.</math>  This is an option that I will choose to close off for now, but leave it open to consider at a later point.  Thus, it suffices to give a brief discussion of what it involves, in the process of moving on to its chief alternative.

In this version of a grammar for !L! = !C!(!P!), the intermediate type T

is partitioned as T = %e% + T', thereby parsing the intermediate symbol T

in parallel fashion with the division of its overlying type as S = %e% + S'.

This is an option that I will choose to close off for now, but leave it open

to consider at a later point.  Thus, it suffices to give a brief discussion

of what it involves, in the process of moving on to its chief alternative.

There does not appear to be anything radically wrong with trying this

There does not appear to be anything radically wrong with trying this approach to types.  It is reasonable and consistent in its underlying principle, and it provides a rational and a homogeneous strategy toward all parts of speech, but it does require an extra amount of conceptual overhead, in that every non-trivial type has to be split into two parts and comprehended in two stages.  Consequently, in view of the largely practical difficulties of making the requisite distinctions for every intermediate symbol, it is a common convention, whenever possible, to restrict intermediate types to covering exclusively non-empty strings.

approach to types.  It is reasonable and consistent in its underlying

principle, and it provides a rational and a homogeneous strategy toward

all parts of speech, but it does require an extra amount of conceptual

overhead, in that every non-trivial type has to be split into two parts

and comprehended in two stages.  Consequently, in view of the largely

practical difficulties of making the requisite distinctions for every

intermediate symbol, it is a common convention, whenever possible, to

restrict intermediate types to covering exclusively non-empty strings.

For the sake of future reference, it is convenient to refer to this restriction

For the sake of future reference, it is convenient to refer to this restriction

on intermediate symbols as the "intermediate significance" constraint.  It can

on intermediate symbols as the "intermediate significance" constraint.  It can