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?