Ron Savage's proposed changes to the Timeline

[jeffreykegler]

00:25 ronsavage Jeffey. Reading your timeline, under "Language" as of 1959, I really struggled with this:
00:25 ronsavage Behaviorist claims that they can eliminate "traditional formulations in terms of reference and meaning", Chomsky says, are "simply not true."[48]
00:26 ronsavage Because there is too much text between 'claims' and 'Chomsky says'. I politely suggest this be rephased.
00:28 ronsavage Make Behaviorist plural. Then just start a new sentence with ". Claims which Chomsky says..."
00:38 ronsavage Also, just under the heading September 1961: Sakai discovers table parsing, the word publishes appears twice.
00:40 ronsavage Under the heading Term: "Table-driven", the words 'if tracks' need an 'it' between them.
00:44 ronsavage Under the heading "The Operator Issue as of 1961", 6 paras down it says "Recursive descent, it turns out, cannot parse BASIC-OP because it is left recursive.". The final 'it' is ambiguous (to me). It could refer to recursive descent or to BASIC-OP.
00:46 ronsavage A couple of paras down it says "developed well enough to state why in a precise terms.". The single 'a' needs to be chopped.
01:02 ronsavage Under the heading "The Parsing Problem as of 1965", 4 paras down, you say "And for extensions the LR hierarchy collapses.". Did you mean intensions here?
01:03 ronsavage And in the very next sentence, "But in 1965 these things that are not considered troubling.", I suspect 'that' needs to be chopped.
01:10 ronsavage A tiny nit. In "In the above {Z}* means zero or more occurences of Z" displays on my laptop as {z}*. I'm using the FF browser. Why the 1st Z is lower-case I have no idea. What you see here is copied by me dragging the mouse cursor over the text. And this IRC client is complaining about the spelling of occurences, too.
01:12 ronsavage Under the heading "Term: "Inherited attributes", the 2nd 'attributes' in the 2nd sentence is missing an 'r'.
01:16 idiosyncrat ronsavage: Thanks! I will look at these.

[jeffreykegler]

Ron Savage's comments in the preceded are copied in from the IRC channel.

[jeffreykegler]

@ronsavage I opened this Github issue for your Timeline suggestions.

[ronsavage]

Hi Jeffrey Oops. I should have used git directly, perhaps. Sigh.

…

--- Cheers Ron savage.net.au

On 2023-07-05 11:21, Jeffrey Kegler wrote: @ronsavage I opened this Github issue for your Timeline suggestions.

[jeffreykegler]

No problem. The timeline does not have a separate repo, and I don't note the repo's existence anywhere, so I don't really make it easy for people. :-)

[jeffreykegler]

@ronsavage: Another from the IRC channel:

In footnote 65, 'in will' should probably read 'in what will'.

[jeffreykegler]

@ronsavage: I have incorporated your changes, except two.

01:10 ronsavage A tiny nit. In "In the above {Z}* means zero or more occurences of Z" displays on my laptop as {z}*. I'm using the FF browser. Why the 1st Z is lower-case I have no idea. What you see here is copied by me dragging the mouse cursor over the text.

The above issue perhaps did not show up in my IRC client. In any case, I didn't see the issue.

01:02 ronsavage Under the heading "The Parsing Problem as of 1965", 4 paras down, you say "And for extensions the LR hierarchy collapses.". Did you mean intensions here?

No, I meant "extensions" there.

[ronsavage]

Hi Jeffrey OK. Thanx.

…

--- Cheers Ron savage.net.au

On 2023-07-07 05:38, Jeffrey Kegler wrote: @ronsavage: I have incorporated your changes, except two. > 01:10 ronsavage A tiny nit. In "In the above {Z}* means zero or more > occurences of Z" displays on my laptop as {z}*. I'm using the FF > browser. Why the 1st Z is lower-case I have no idea. What you see here > is copied by me dragging the mouse cursor over the text. The above issue perhaps did not show up in my IRC client. In any case, I didn't see the issue. > 01:02 ronsavage Under the heading "The Parsing Problem as of 1965", 4 > paras down, you say "And for extensions the LR hierarchy collapses.". > Did you mean intensions here? No, I meant "extensions" there.

[jeffreykegler]

@ronsavage: I will be keeping this issue open because I want to relook at "The Parsing Problem of 1965" and its discussion of extension vs. intension. It may not be as clear as it could be.

Otherwise this ticket is complete.