Talk:Affix grammar

On the arrow notation used.

After the following sentence: "We can describe an extremely simple fragment of English in the following manner:", an arrow notation is used which if I'm not mistaken corresponds to something like the grammar diagrams people learn in junior high school. But in order to figure out that this is the case, one already has to have familiarity with this sort of derivation. There's no way to gather this from context. This means that a reader is likely to need to go to the 'Context Free Grammar' page to figure out what those arrows are doing.

It's clear that better explanatory tools are needed. The arrow notation, when tied to a particular set of interpreting rules, can yield an actual diagram, instead of just an ambiguous notation. The 'grammar' related sections of wikipedia, if appropriately reformed, might even serve as a good 'proof of concept' for how to make Wikipedia articles pedagogically correct. Reforms could start with the simplest grammar concepts on Wikipedia, be tested by systematically obtaining user feedback, and then progress outward to the more difficult grammar concepts. Reforms could include standardizations for infoboxes, notations, diagrams (which can be generated from notations) and also for verbiage.

I don't know exactly how this would progress, but something needs to be done, because most Wikipedia articles on abstract topics are very 'garbagey' from the pedagogical perspective. They start out confusing and get more confusing as the articles progress. Figuring out a useful set of standards could transform these articles into useful summarizations of topics that people want to learn about. Comiscuous (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)