but i didn't like the terms,the same variable.i want to that at the same operation that seemed somehow to flow off the tongue around awkwardly.
so um,i look and decided that people,something like union,because most of what you get in the result is the union of two sets of things.but it was a little bit left.
different from communion because of the same time as being a set of theoretical operation is also a predicate.
they're very curious code of operation.
so i started with the union when the world,and that came up with the idea,calling it unification.
honest to god,i came up with that name for that operation,when some body else account with the same name from the same operation.
well,not fight.because.
robinson had come up for it in the terms.in the.
realm of logical terms.
whereas for me,it was an operation on attribute values.
and there is a difference,though,because after that you can always introduce a new attribute with a new value,where the term meant to certain fixed number of arguments.
and it took meeting bill rounds many years later to ensure me that,yes,there's a sort of intuition,istic way of looking at term rewriting when it turns out.
the same sort of thing as i had done before.but i felt.
that i no longer had to look around for another name for this sort of thing.and so unification,which should have stuck it stick.and that.
that whole thing work out very well.
um.
i then use this in my paper that i gave to the person linguistic society.
to.
make my contribution to the.
the great gold rush towards new syntactic formalism.
those lxg coming along,though it didn't have its name yet,and there was 8psg looking as though it might come into existence,so i didn't know it's name yet.
and i thought,i will have one of these.you know,every linguist with especially computational linguists had once,so i didn't see why i should too.so i introduce this thing called unification.
grammar.
which was a little bit of atms.with a dash of unification and a whole lot of.
functional system at grammar.
frog.
somebody who had been in advisor of mine way back in cambridge,man in michael holiday.
and i decided.
shortly after that,it sort of caught on with a few people,especially people interested in generation.because,as the other day inspired thing,it was much more motivated by.
the generation and policy.
we feel that secure.just because.
well,actually.
i had fallen for this idea,which lots of computational language fell for name is that we'd all been working on passing,because only so you had to do that.
we would leave generation and later,because that was dead simple anyway.
and it was only when we got to the later and try to do it,and that we discovered that it was just as hard as fuzzy,but we'd never noticed it.
um.
but i let the holiday that he did,not,because i knew quite a lot about it,having been a student of this for a while.
but also,because it takes a really completely different approach to different attitude rather than approach,didn't attitude us thinking about this.
we made a paper on it.
and towards what gram is about.
the primary data that every other language tries to account for.
is.
observed linguistic behavior,strings of symbols that you find.and we know,collect,known,called them cooper,over the capital c.you didn't do that in those days?i mean it.
they do,it comes from informant,stated that comes from name,would use you step from that data.and then you look up little by little,by little,until you may be there to work.in the.
what are they trying to say?
how did it start from trying to characterize the kinds of things that you might say?
and then to decide how you might go about organizing this material.so it later,then in the end,you actually get a sentence of that.
and it's interesting that the thing that actually spells out what the string will be,what he called realization rules.
what you need in order to test this theory,if it's a fully click theory,are really quite got around to specifying how they should be written.
it was sort of clear to him how the trivial,mathematical,algorithmic laws that should be done.you,for a 2much about the details than that.but how.
the system of choices than the person would have to make in order to prefer sometimes saying things this way and sometimes sing them back.
that was,that was the thing that motivated much of what he did.
i bet from unification that i never talked about it again.