I like really impressed by how useful a well designed Markdown editor can be in previewing the final result.

Why can't we have the same thing for linguistics.

Imagine what a basic CFG syntax markdown could look like. I could write simple rules:

`S --> NP VP`
`NP --> Det N`
`VP --> V NP`

And they'd just be converted into a simple tree in the preview just like that (without lexical items in notes).

And we could have:

`[.S [.NP Something ] [.VP [.V like ] [.NP this ] ] ]`

There's no reason why not.

----
LaTeX. That's a thing I should probably be more familiar with...

----
representative words partitioning UK/US [english vowel variation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_set):
> bath choice cloth cure dress face fleece foot force goat goose kit lot mouth near north nurse palm price square start strut thought trap


----
Lambek's "From word to sentence" notes (pp.79-80) the difficulty of shoehorning languages which use parallel constructions (resp. the mathematician's *respectively*) to place objects and modifiers, not in a nested order, but in parallel sequence (resp. not order-inverting).  Maybe linguists need an equivalent of the `zip` function?