Perl in Latin?

[alice]

It's sort of conlangy, and a weird intellectual exercise; might be considered "applied conlanging".

http://users.monash.edu/~damian/papers/ ... igata.html

[Kuchigakatai]

I'd just like to note it isn't Latin, but "Latin". It uses the endings in ways that it produces invalid Latin, e.g. *damentum. So, it's a conlang.

[bradrn]

Ah yes, Lingua::Romana::Perligata. I remember reading about it when I first learned about Perl, though I never looked into it until recently.

Relatedly, here’s some relevant comments I made on Hacker News about the relationship between linguistics and programming:

(warning, long quote)

More: show

As someone with an interest in both linguistics and programming, I’ve often wondered what programming languages would be like if they had developed from an agglutinating language like Cree rather than the mostly isolating languages of western Europe. English sentences and phrases consist mostly of isolated words joined together by syntactic words: ‘Lie down on the table’. This has carried over to the programming languages we use, which mostly consist of isolated keywords and operators joined together by syntactic rules. e.g. a ‘translation’ of the previous example into Smalltalk-ish pseudocode would look something like:

Code: Select all

    you lieDown; position: (table onTopOf)

Contrast this to languages like Cree — or Ojibwe, since I can’t find a convenient Cree example — where this sentence becomes as follows, with the verb becoming the central element of the sentence and each word inflected describing its relationship to the others (Valentine 2001):

Code: Select all

      Zhngishin     doopwining.
    you lie prone  on the table

I’d be really curious to see how a native speaker of such a language would design a programming language — I’m not sure what it would look like, but I suspect it would look remarkably different to the ones we usually use. Corbett’s languages look like an interesting step in this direction, and I’d be interested in knowing more details if they’re available.

But look at your smalltalk example: does that look like English syntax? First, the word order is wrong, and second, "onTopOf" already is a concatenation.

I agree that Smalltalk syntax doesn’t look at all like English syntax, at least in terms of word order. (If anything, it looks a lot more like Burmese.) And it is true that early languages like RPG and SNOBOL — and I should include assembly here as well — have little to do with any human language. But that’s not the central component of my claim. What’s important here is that, for most if not all modern programming languages, you can construct a syntax tree, like this:

Code: Select all

        ┌────────┴─────────┐
        │            ┌─────┴────┐
     ┌──┴──┐         │       ┌──┴──┐
    you lieDown; position: (table onTopOf)

This is a very English-like trait, in that English sentences also consist of isolated words organised in a syntax tree:

Code: Select all

        ┌───┴───┐
        │    ┌──┴───┐
     ┌──┴─┐  │   ┌──┴──┐
    Lie down on the table

This structure is of course common crosslinguistically, but agglutinative and polysynthetic languages such as Cree are structured differently. In these languages, words are composed of a stem, surrounded by affixes expressing their relationships to other words. e.g. Koasati verbs (which are reasonably straightforward in this regard) have the following structure (Kimball 1985):

incorporated.noun - directional - instrumental - distributive - indirect.object - direct.object - specific.locative - general.locative - 1A.prefixes - STEM - adverb - diminutive - intention - ability - mood - deduction - modality - dubitative - hearsay - auditory - tense - consequence - sent.func = enclitics

Due to this extensive marking, word order is extremely free; in many languages with this amount of marking, words within a sentence may be arranged in pretty much any order. Though linguists can still draw out syntax trees for these languages, it is unclear to what extent such an abstraction is useful: the affixes within a word have a rigid and non-hierarchical order, while the words themselves have few constraints on ordering. This is a characteristic unlike all programming languages I am aware of, and is what I refer to when I say that programming languages today are more like English and French than they are like Cree and Koasati.

I’d be interested to see what people here think of these ideas.

I'd just like to note it isn't Latin, but "Latin". It uses the endings in ways that it produces invalid Latin, e.g. *damentum. So, it's a conlang.

Programming languages are hardly bastions of grammaticality. ‘while line equals read line from file, if line equals ‘quit’ then return else process’, say, is hardly valid English either. (Or, if the contrived example bothers you, consider AppleScript: ‘set resultAlertReply to display alert "Alert Text" as warning buttons {"Skip", "Okay", "Cancel"} default button 2 cancel button 1 giving up after 2’.)