That NEW-MEMORY name is unworkable. I chose CHANGE and RECALL so they'd be equal lengths.
Perhaps RETAIN then, it seems far more consistent with your other names, and the semantics are still correct. This does not matter as it is too explicit for your liking, and if I understand correctly you would like CHANGE to be like this RETAIN except operating transparently on visible mutations in its scope rather than with the explicit addition of a journaling mutator. I suppose the objects with visible state could have the journaling mutator be set as their writer. This would make recollection transparent to the caller, and would allow for your scope based interface. Was this more along the lines of what you were thinking?
Perhaps I didn't make it clear the history should be traversable both ways.
This was clear to me but I still proposed a scheme which did not take this into account. Even if RECALL was implemented in terms of CHANGE my proposal does not have a clear buffering mechanism for the calls to CHANGE occurring during repeated calls to RECALL. The interface seems like it would become more complicated here as well since there are multiple ways to handle recollection at this point (e.g. tree undo, and Emacs undo). I think I now understand a bit better your claims to the necessity of a shell of a system.
English may benefit more from separate tables which hold such information, with which to perform analysis. [...] It's not necessarily less efficient, if the quantities align correctly.
I was thinking this as well actually. I'm glad I seem to be understanding Elision even if I lack the linguistic depth to fully understand how best to implement it.
I learned Latin to improve mine English, and it slowly but certainly showed me how deformed and sickly it has become.
I suspect it's largely a myth that only young people can learn languages well; regardless, I feel the need to learn a language before my myelination is complete. English being a creole of Old English and a koine of creoles, and being the global lingua franca encouraging further creolization leads me to believe it can not be trusted. I think there may have been some benefits to this process, namely the imprecision of the language might have encouraged simplification of ideas as in analytic philosophy (also pragmatism and simple engineering (think American vehicles)), but this does not mean one should want to speak a language which discourages precision! At the minimum I must learn English grammar as my country seems to think it fit to deny human beings the birth right of language similar to that story of the Indian king who trapped infants in a cage to prevent exposure to language under the deluded notion that such an act would lead to the development of the gods' language rather than the apes he would come to find.
Excuse that this reply isn't better. I've been tired lately.
Don't feel overly obligated to reply. Progress has assured me that I am a fool.