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:
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