[02:34:54] <inariksit> wow I just realised something bout categorial grammar; like the assumption that intransitive verb and VP are of same type, it's totally ignoring ergative-absolutive systems
[02:35:06] <inariksit> that's all for tonight
[02:35:08] <inariksit> :-D
[02:44:11] *** Joins: spectre (~fran@115.114.202.84.customer.cdi.no)
[04:35:44] *** Quits: Gurkenglas (~Gurkengla@dslb-094-223-143-032.094.223.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
[07:43:42] *** Quits: spectre (~fran@115.114.202.84.customer.cdi.no) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
[09:43:41] <vin-ivar> ergative master race \o/
[10:03:33] *** Joins: spectre (~fran@115.114.202.84.customer.cdi.no)
[10:38:17] *** Quits: spectre (~fran@115.114.202.84.customer.cdi.no) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
[11:26:12] *** Joins: spectre (~fran@129.242.180.226)
[11:55:08] <inariksit> vin-ivar: yeah ^^
[11:55:23] <inariksit> ooh this seems like I'm going to use GF's higher-order abstract syntax for the first time
[11:55:54] <inariksit> ("this" = toy fragment of categorial grammar in GF)
[12:00:50] *** Joins: Gurkenglas (Gurkenglas@dslb-094-223-143-032.094.223.pools.vodafone-ip.de)
[12:39:10] <vin-ivar> i've cleaned up and commented the apertium-gf code, i'll make a pull request in a bit
[12:39:32] <vin-ivar> somehow i got 2000 more lemma oO trying to figure out where
[12:43:47] <inariksit> cool!
[13:07:09] *** Quits: Gurkenglas (Gurkenglas@dslb-094-223-143-032.094.223.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
[13:17:29] <inariksit> this is sure very readable :'D Marcel:NP ( proved:(S\NP)/NP _ and:(S\NP)\(S\NP) walked:S\NP ):S\NP
[13:18:10] <spectre> CCG >_>
[13:19:00] <inariksit> (oops I'm missing one (S\NP)/ there)
[13:23:28] <inariksit> hmm that's funny with GF: so this works nicely
[13:23:28] <inariksit> CatGram> l MkPhr (AndVP Sleep Walk Marcel)
[13:23:29] <inariksit> Marcel:NP ( slept:S\NP and:(X\X)/X walked:S\NP ):S\NP
[13:24:04] <inariksit> then I can also do this
[13:24:05] <inariksit> l MkPhr (AndVP (\x -> Prove Completeness Completeness) Walk Marcel)
[13:24:05] <inariksit> Marcel:NP ( proved:(S\NP)/NP completeness:NP and:(X\X)/X walked:S\NP ):S\NP
[13:25:13] <inariksit> so I can add in the abstract syntax, not just NP->S like Walk, but also (\x -> Walk <something not-X>)
[13:26:25] <inariksit> it would be nicer if it only allowed to do this:
[13:26:26] <inariksit> l MkPhr (AndVP (Prove Completeness) Walk Marcel)
[13:28:22] <inariksit> but yeah, I'm just playing around and procrastinating :-P
[13:29:09] <inariksit> ooh oops I mean this instead of (Prove Completeness): l MkPhr (AndVP (\x -> Prove x Completeness) Walk Marcel)
[13:50:37] *** Joins: Gurkenglas (Gurkenglas@dslb-094-223-143-032.094.223.pools.vodafone-ip.de)
[14:51:39] <inariksit> https://github.com/inariksit/gf-contrib/tree/master/catgram
[16:48:47] *** Quits: spectre (~fran@129.242.180.226) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
[17:18:40] *** Joins: spectre (~fran@115.114.202.84.customer.cdi.no)