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