[04:51:27] *** Quits: proteus-guy (~proteus-g@2405:9800:bc10:1ca:859:a022:e9e2:d5cf) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[05:23:57] *** Joins: proteus-guy (~proteus-g@14.207.4.220)
[12:49:22] *** Quits: proteus-guy (~proteus-g@14.207.4.220) (Remote host closed the connection)
[15:35:23] *** Joins: proteus-guy (~proteus-g@2405:9800:bc10:1ca:486c:b59d:8ba5:e857)
[15:59:06] <inariksit> now I remember why I implemented the basque noun morphology with all the &+, like who came up with an idea to *not* have agreement inside noun phrases
[15:59:48] <inariksit> I still need case in all categories that appear in a noun phrase, because it's totally valid to have just "house", or "red house", or "this red house"
[16:00:08] <inariksit> in the first one only "house" has the case, second one only "red" has the case, third one only "this" has case
[16:00:19] <inariksit> or something like that
[16:00:47] <inariksit> I'm just trying to write a tiny, elegant, neat grammar from scratch to demonstrate all the good stuff in my paper
[16:01:07] <inariksit> but it's not going to be so pretty with this stuff ;_;
[16:01:18] * inariksit linguist first world problems
[16:01:53] <inariksit> (just imagine there was a verb there)
[16:02:04] <inariksit> (or a preposition or a symbol such as &)
[16:02:25] <inariksit> also remind me sometime to fix more bugs in the real basque RG
[16:02:39] <inariksit> daherb: where's your bot when I need it