Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Is there a word for this?

Expand Messages
  • Ralph DeCarli
    On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:32:39 -0800 Gary Shannon wrote: I had to think about this for a bit. I would be worried that Bob eats asparagus
    Message 1 of 29 , Jan 21, 2013
      On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:32:39 -0800
      Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:

      I had to think about this for a bit. I would be worried that "Bob
      eats asparagus [with a fork]" might imply that bob was eating the
      fork. In this sentence the meaning is clear, but those university
      cops drinking after midnight a few days back might be a bit confused.

      Also, if I automate sentence construction, I want the user to
      completely describe the subject before moving to the verb and
      completely describe the verb before moving to the object.

      Your method, of course, would depend on your goal.

      Ralph
      > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Ralph DeCarli
      > <omnivore@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > --snip--
      > > > For programming purposes the method is extremely useful, but
      > > > for the purpose of describing the algorithm I can't use
      > > > existing terms like "parts of speech" without misleading the
      > > > reader. Thus the need for a new term.
      > > >
      > > > So the question is not "does the method work?" For programming
      > > > purposes, it does. The questions is, what shall I call it?
      > > >
      > > > ---snip---
      > > >
      > > Who would your audience be? Confusing them least would depend on
      > > their background.
      >
      > Realistically, my main audience would probably be my own future
      > self, when I go back in ten years to try to understand the code.
      >
      > > I did something (possibly) similar and ended up with
      > > 'Objects' (mostly nouns) 'Descriptors' (mostly adjectives and
      > > adverbs) and 'Relationships' (everything else, including verbs).
      > > One might guess that I have a background in data modeling.
      > >
      > > I don't know if this will help, but you can see the upshot here.
      >
      > That looks interesting.
      >
      > I was wondering too how useful it might be to go to the opposite
      > extreme of what I had proposed and just tag words as "part of a
      > noun phrase" (which would include nouns, pronouns, adjectives,
      > articles, quantifiers, demonstratives,...), or "part of a verb
      > phrase" (including verbs, adverbs, auxiliaries,,,). Beyond that,
      > the third part of speech might be "connectors" like pronouns,
      > conjunctions, commas, and some other stuff (?)
      >
      > So there would only be three parts of speech: Nouny, Verby, and
      > Connectors. A tagged sentence might look like:
      >
      > All/N sorts/N of/C strange/N articles/N were/V arranged/V
      > on/C the/N shelves/N
      >
      >
      > In fact, it seems like no meaning is lost when the contiguous
      > like-tagged groups are permuted (internally):
      >
      > Sorts/N all/N of/C articles/N strange/N arranged/V were/V
      > on/C shelves/N the/N
      >
      > I notice in your web page you included the prepositional phrase
      > "with a fork" as part of the verb. I think I might apply it as a
      > global modifier to the whole sentence:
      >
      > Bob eats asparagus [with a fork] [in the park] [under the
      > elm tree] [beside his friend Sally]
      >
      > That way the prepositional phrases all get tacked to the sentence
      > with "connectors" as in:
      >
      > NVN CN CN CN CN
      >
      > --gary


      --
      omnivore@... ==> Ralph L. De Carli

      Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
      They haven't decided what it looks like yet.
    • George Corley
      ... First of all, it would be pragmatically unusual to think someone ate a fork -- you probably wouldn t jump to that conclusion without more information. If
      Message 2 of 29 , Jan 21, 2013
        On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Ralph DeCarli <omnivore@...>wrote:

        > On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:32:39 -0800
        > Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
        >
        > I had to think about this for a bit. I would be worried that "Bob
        > eats asparagus [with a fork]" might imply that bob was eating the
        > fork. In this sentence the meaning is clear, but those university
        > cops drinking after midnight a few days back might be a bit confused.
        >

        First of all, it would be pragmatically unusual to think someone ate a fork
        -- you probably wouldn't jump to that conclusion without more information.
        If you really care about this particular ambiguity for some reason, the
        easy way to deal with it is separate "instrumental" with (indicating an
        instrument used to complete a task), from "commitative" with (indicating a
        relationship with another NP). This happens all the time in natural
        languages, so it's not that big a deal.


        > Also, if I automate sentence construction, I want the user to
        > completely describe the subject before moving to the verb and
        > completely describe the verb before moving to the object.
        >
        > Your method, of course, would depend on your goal.
        >

        Do you consider the instrument or other prepositional elements inherently
        part of the verb?
      • Ralph DeCarli
        On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:20:30 -0600 ... In this specific case I consider the fork to be a data element of the eating predicate, if that makes any sense. I
        Message 3 of 29 , Jan 22, 2013
          On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:20:30 -0600
          George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:

          >
          > Do you consider the instrument or other prepositional elements
          > inherently part of the verb?
          >
          In this specific case I consider the fork to be a data element of
          the 'eating' predicate, if that makes any sense. I tend to think of
          the language in data modeling terms.

          A given prepositional phrase could modify the subject, the object or
          the predicate, but it can't modify the entire sentence. I think this
          actually stems from my general fear of 'global variables'.

          In other words, I'm really still more of a programmer and a "data
          bigot" than a linguist, so my conlang (or con-patois, more
          accurately) is going to reflect my learned habits.

          Ralph
          --

          Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
          They haven't decided what it looks like yet.
        • Jeff Sheets
          I m surprised nobody has mentioned constituent yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_(linguistics) The set of all constituents then, is all phrases
          Message 4 of 29 , Jan 25, 2013
            I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "constituent" yet.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_(linguistics)

            The set of all constituents then, is all phrases and single words in the
            language. As the context becomes more known, the set of potential
            constituents is reduced to a subset. Note, however:

            The box ___ down.

            does not offer a constituent in the technical meaning of the word, but I
            still think that that is as close as you are likely to get. About all that
            fits there is the subset of verbs that function and fit with the adverb
            down, though I'm not putting too much thought into that. However, if you
            start with:

            The box ___.

            You know that any of the following will fit:

            came in the mail today.
            fell down.
            is really rather large and ungainly to transport across the distance of 16
            miles by foot both uphill an downhill.

            The context allows a much broader set of constituents. However, below
            constituents are just the parts of speech. The reason why verbs like
            "spoke" don't fit in the first sentence is that they lack some features.
            Some verbs will be transitive, and thus require a direct object. Some verbs
            are ditransitive and require both a direct and indirect object. In this
            case, the feature is more that the verbs must describe movement.

            The box slides down.
            The box fell down.
            The box ran down.
            The box jumped down.
            The box teleported down.
            * The box spoke down.
            * The box thought down.
            * The box befriended down.
            x The box ascended down.

            That last sentence feels grammatical to me, though obviously it makes no
            sense, but the three marked with * are very much syntactically incorrect
            for me. The key thing is that slides, fell, ran, jumped, teleported, and
            ascended are all verbs which have the feature of describing motion.

            One question I have is, how are you defining/describing the grammar and
            lexicon of your language? Are you using a formal grammar notation like the
            following?

            S -> NP VP
            NP -> (Det) N
            NP -> NP PP
            NP -> Adj NP
            PP -> Prep NP
            VP -> V
            VP -> VP Adv
            etc.

            You may want to identify that adverbs like "down" must modify a verb with
            the feature of "motion", and then for every motion verb, add that feature
            to a list of features. Other features you should probably have is the
            transitivity of the verb.


            On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Ralph DeCarli <omnivore@...>wrote:

            > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:20:30 -0600
            > George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:
            >
            > >
            > > Do you consider the instrument or other prepositional elements
            > > inherently part of the verb?
            > >
            > In this specific case I consider the fork to be a data element of
            > the 'eating' predicate, if that makes any sense. I tend to think of
            > the language in data modeling terms.
            >
            > A given prepositional phrase could modify the subject, the object or
            > the predicate, but it can't modify the entire sentence. I think this
            > actually stems from my general fear of 'global variables'.
            >
            > In other words, I'm really still more of a programmer and a "data
            > bigot" than a linguist, so my conlang (or con-patois, more
            > accurately) is going to reflect my learned habits.
            >
            > Ralph
            > --
            >
            > Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
            > They haven't decided what it looks like yet.
            >
          • Gary Shannon
            This is very interesting. Thanks for posting that link. I ll have to spend some more time looking into that. As for my formal grammar, I m using a
            Message 5 of 29 , Jan 25, 2013
              This is very interesting. Thanks for posting that link. I'll have to
              spend some more time looking into that.

              As for my formal grammar, I'm using a parenthetical notation that
              allows me to tag/parse a sentence, and then extract both the
              production rules and the lexicon directly from a collection of tagged
              sentences. Something like this:

              Sentence: Bravely the wounded soldier struggled on.

              Tagged/parsed:

              SNT(RB(Bravely) SNT(ND(DT(the) NJ(JJ(wounded) NN(soldier)))
              VBP(VB(struggled) RBP(on))))

              Words removed:

              SNT(RB SNT(ND(DT NJ(JJ NN)) VBP(VB RBP)))

              Rules extracted:

              ND(DT NJ)
              NJ(JJ NN)
              SNT(ND VBP)
              SNT(RB SNT)
              VBP(VB RBP)

              Lexicon extracted:

              DT(the)
              JJ(wounded)
              NN(soldier)
              RB(bravely)
              RBP(on)
              VB(struggled)

              Sorted by word:

              bravely RB
              on RBP
              soldier NN
              struggled VB
              the DT
              wounded JJ

              And, of course, when the same word shows up with different parts of
              speech, all those alternatives would appear in the lexicon. My tags
              are borrowed from the Brown Corpus tag set, with several modifications
              to fit my specific application. (
              http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/ccalas/tagsets/brown.html )

              --gary


              On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...> wrote:
              > I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "constituent" yet.
              >
              > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_(linguistics)
              >
              > The set of all constituents then, is all phrases and single words in the
              > language. As the context becomes more known, the set of potential
              > constituents is reduced to a subset. Note, however:
              >
              > The box ___ down.
              >
              > does not offer a constituent in the technical meaning of the word, but I
              > still think that that is as close as you are likely to get. About all that
              > fits there is the subset of verbs that function and fit with the adverb
              > down, though I'm not putting too much thought into that. However, if you
              > start with:
              >
              > The box ___.
              >
              > You know that any of the following will fit:
              >
              > came in the mail today.
              > fell down.
              > is really rather large and ungainly to transport across the distance of 16
              > miles by foot both uphill an downhill.
              >
              > The context allows a much broader set of constituents. However, below
              > constituents are just the parts of speech. The reason why verbs like
              > "spoke" don't fit in the first sentence is that they lack some features.
              > Some verbs will be transitive, and thus require a direct object. Some verbs
              > are ditransitive and require both a direct and indirect object. In this
              > case, the feature is more that the verbs must describe movement.
              >
              > The box slides down.
              > The box fell down.
              > The box ran down.
              > The box jumped down.
              > The box teleported down.
              > * The box spoke down.
              > * The box thought down.
              > * The box befriended down.
              > x The box ascended down.
              >
              > That last sentence feels grammatical to me, though obviously it makes no
              > sense, but the three marked with * are very much syntactically incorrect
              > for me. The key thing is that slides, fell, ran, jumped, teleported, and
              > ascended are all verbs which have the feature of describing motion.
              >
              > One question I have is, how are you defining/describing the grammar and
              > lexicon of your language? Are you using a formal grammar notation like the
              > following?
              >
              > S -> NP VP
              > NP -> (Det) N
              > NP -> NP PP
              > NP -> Adj NP
              > PP -> Prep NP
              > VP -> V
              > VP -> VP Adv
              > etc.
              >
              > You may want to identify that adverbs like "down" must modify a verb with
              > the feature of "motion", and then for every motion verb, add that feature
              > to a list of features. Other features you should probably have is the
              > transitivity of the verb.
              >
              >
              > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Ralph DeCarli <omnivore@...>wrote:
              >
              >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:20:30 -0600
              >> George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> >
              >> > Do you consider the instrument or other prepositional elements
              >> > inherently part of the verb?
              >> >
              >> In this specific case I consider the fork to be a data element of
              >> the 'eating' predicate, if that makes any sense. I tend to think of
              >> the language in data modeling terms.
              >>
              >> A given prepositional phrase could modify the subject, the object or
              >> the predicate, but it can't modify the entire sentence. I think this
              >> actually stems from my general fear of 'global variables'.
              >>
              >> In other words, I'm really still more of a programmer and a "data
              >> bigot" than a linguist, so my conlang (or con-patois, more
              >> accurately) is going to reflect my learned habits.
              >>
              >> Ralph
              >> --
              >>
              >> Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
              >> They haven't decided what it looks like yet.
              >>
            • Jeff Sheets
              Interesting choices for the names of categories/tags. I m a bit too used to Phrase Structure Rules to have figured that say RB means adverb, or that JJ means
              Message 6 of 29 , Jan 26, 2013
                Interesting choices for the names of categories/tags. I'm a bit too used to
                Phrase Structure Rules to have figured that say RB means adverb, or that JJ
                means adjective. But how you name your tags isn't important so long as the
                system is consistent.

                Some other links for you. The first is a link to a Coursera online class on
                natural language processing, which I think most closely matches your
                interest. Might give you an idea of how academics are approaching the
                problem today. NLP is without doubt an extremely difficult task for
                computers.

                https://www.coursera.org/course/nlangp

                This next link is a crash course to Phrase Structure Rules. It gives an
                idea of how I approach syntax, and also shows just how ambiguous natural
                languages can be, and thus how difficult it can be to translate them
                automatically with computers.

                http://people.umass.edu/afarudi/Phrase%20Structure%20Rules-Kyle%20Johnson.pdf

                If you have some money you can afford to spend, less than $50, I highly
                recommend the following textbook:

                http://www.amazon.com/Grammar-as-Science-Richard-Larson/dp/026251303X

                It's a thorough read on how syntax is approached on its own, including how
                to deal with features of words and phrases in a grammar (such as verbs of
                motion as a feature, locative, dative, accusative in noun phrases, etc.)
                and how to deal with movement of constituents in a sentence. Don't let its
                cartoony diagrams fool you, either. It gets into the really complex
                syntactic structures just as much as it does simplistic ones. Available in
                paperback and a kindle version, and used versions at quite a low price.

                Now, I wish there was a nice, concise, definitive, and standardized list of
                English phrase structure rules... but as far as I know, there is no such
                compilation. Primarily because linguists don't necessarily agree on how to
                deal with the really complex issues of English syntax.


                On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:

                > This is very interesting. Thanks for posting that link. I'll have to
                > spend some more time looking into that.
                >
                > As for my formal grammar, I'm using a parenthetical notation that
                > allows me to tag/parse a sentence, and then extract both the
                > production rules and the lexicon directly from a collection of tagged
                > sentences. Something like this:
                >
                > Sentence: Bravely the wounded soldier struggled on.
                >
                > Tagged/parsed:
                >
                > SNT(RB(Bravely) SNT(ND(DT(the) NJ(JJ(wounded) NN(soldier)))
                > VBP(VB(struggled) RBP(on))))
                >
                > Words removed:
                >
                > SNT(RB SNT(ND(DT NJ(JJ NN)) VBP(VB RBP)))
                >
                > Rules extracted:
                >
                > ND(DT NJ)
                > NJ(JJ NN)
                > SNT(ND VBP)
                > SNT(RB SNT)
                > VBP(VB RBP)
                >
                > Lexicon extracted:
                >
                > DT(the)
                > JJ(wounded)
                > NN(soldier)
                > RB(bravely)
                > RBP(on)
                > VB(struggled)
                >
                > Sorted by word:
                >
                > bravely RB
                > on RBP
                > soldier NN
                > struggled VB
                > the DT
                > wounded JJ
                >
                > And, of course, when the same word shows up with different parts of
                > speech, all those alternatives would appear in the lexicon. My tags
                > are borrowed from the Brown Corpus tag set, with several modifications
                > to fit my specific application. (
                > http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/ccalas/tagsets/brown.html )
                >
                > --gary
                >
                >
                > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...>
                > wrote:
                > > I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "constituent" yet.
                > >
                > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_(linguistics)
                > >
                > > The set of all constituents then, is all phrases and single words in the
                > > language. As the context becomes more known, the set of potential
                > > constituents is reduced to a subset. Note, however:
                > >
                > > The box ___ down.
                > >
                > > does not offer a constituent in the technical meaning of the word, but I
                > > still think that that is as close as you are likely to get. About all
                > that
                > > fits there is the subset of verbs that function and fit with the adverb
                > > down, though I'm not putting too much thought into that. However, if you
                > > start with:
                > >
                > > The box ___.
                > >
                > > You know that any of the following will fit:
                > >
                > > came in the mail today.
                > > fell down.
                > > is really rather large and ungainly to transport across the distance of
                > 16
                > > miles by foot both uphill an downhill.
                > >
                > > The context allows a much broader set of constituents. However, below
                > > constituents are just the parts of speech. The reason why verbs like
                > > "spoke" don't fit in the first sentence is that they lack some features.
                > > Some verbs will be transitive, and thus require a direct object. Some
                > verbs
                > > are ditransitive and require both a direct and indirect object. In this
                > > case, the feature is more that the verbs must describe movement.
                > >
                > > The box slides down.
                > > The box fell down.
                > > The box ran down.
                > > The box jumped down.
                > > The box teleported down.
                > > * The box spoke down.
                > > * The box thought down.
                > > * The box befriended down.
                > > x The box ascended down.
                > >
                > > That last sentence feels grammatical to me, though obviously it makes no
                > > sense, but the three marked with * are very much syntactically incorrect
                > > for me. The key thing is that slides, fell, ran, jumped, teleported, and
                > > ascended are all verbs which have the feature of describing motion.
                > >
                > > One question I have is, how are you defining/describing the grammar and
                > > lexicon of your language? Are you using a formal grammar notation like
                > the
                > > following?
                > >
                > > S -> NP VP
                > > NP -> (Det) N
                > > NP -> NP PP
                > > NP -> Adj NP
                > > PP -> Prep NP
                > > VP -> V
                > > VP -> VP Adv
                > > etc.
                > >
                > > You may want to identify that adverbs like "down" must modify a verb with
                > > the feature of "motion", and then for every motion verb, add that feature
                > > to a list of features. Other features you should probably have is the
                > > transitivity of the verb.
                > >
                > >
                > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Ralph DeCarli <omnivore@...
                > >wrote:
                > >
                > >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:20:30 -0600
                > >> George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:
                > >>
                > >> >
                > >> > Do you consider the instrument or other prepositional elements
                > >> > inherently part of the verb?
                > >> >
                > >> In this specific case I consider the fork to be a data element of
                > >> the 'eating' predicate, if that makes any sense. I tend to think of
                > >> the language in data modeling terms.
                > >>
                > >> A given prepositional phrase could modify the subject, the object or
                > >> the predicate, but it can't modify the entire sentence. I think this
                > >> actually stems from my general fear of 'global variables'.
                > >>
                > >> In other words, I'm really still more of a programmer and a "data
                > >> bigot" than a linguist, so my conlang (or con-patois, more
                > >> accurately) is going to reflect my learned habits.
                > >>
                > >> Ralph
                > >> --
                > >>
                > >> Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
                > >> They haven't decided what it looks like yet.
                > >>
                >
              • Gary Shannon
                Interesting links. Thank you. I ordered a used copy of that book (Grammar as Science). Are you familiar with Link Grammars? I wrote a parser based on a link
                Message 7 of 29 , Jan 26, 2013
                  Interesting links. Thank you. I ordered a used copy of that book
                  (Grammar as Science).

                  Are you familiar with Link Grammars? I wrote a parser based on a link
                  grammar several years ago. Here's a good introduction:
                  http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/link/pub/www/papers/ps/LG-IWPT93.pdf

                  --gary

                  On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...> wrote:
                  > Interesting choices for the names of categories/tags. I'm a bit too used to
                  > Phrase Structure Rules to have figured that say RB means adverb, or that JJ
                  > means adjective. But how you name your tags isn't important so long as the
                  > system is consistent.
                  >
                  > Some other links for you. The first is a link to a Coursera online class on
                  > natural language processing, which I think most closely matches your
                  > interest. Might give you an idea of how academics are approaching the
                  > problem today. NLP is without doubt an extremely difficult task for
                  > computers.
                  >
                  > https://www.coursera.org/course/nlangp
                  >
                  > This next link is a crash course to Phrase Structure Rules. It gives an
                  > idea of how I approach syntax, and also shows just how ambiguous natural
                  > languages can be, and thus how difficult it can be to translate them
                  > automatically with computers.
                  >
                  > http://people.umass.edu/afarudi/Phrase%20Structure%20Rules-Kyle%20Johnson.pdf
                  >
                  > If you have some money you can afford to spend, less than $50, I highly
                  > recommend the following textbook:
                  >
                  > http://www.amazon.com/Grammar-as-Science-Richard-Larson/dp/026251303X
                  >
                  > It's a thorough read on how syntax is approached on its own, including how
                  > to deal with features of words and phrases in a grammar (such as verbs of
                  > motion as a feature, locative, dative, accusative in noun phrases, etc.)
                  > and how to deal with movement of constituents in a sentence. Don't let its
                  > cartoony diagrams fool you, either. It gets into the really complex
                  > syntactic structures just as much as it does simplistic ones. Available in
                  > paperback and a kindle version, and used versions at quite a low price.
                  >
                  > Now, I wish there was a nice, concise, definitive, and standardized list of
                  > English phrase structure rules... but as far as I know, there is no such
                  > compilation. Primarily because linguists don't necessarily agree on how to
                  > deal with the really complex issues of English syntax.
                  >
                  >
                  > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >> This is very interesting. Thanks for posting that link. I'll have to
                  >> spend some more time looking into that.
                  >>
                  >> As for my formal grammar, I'm using a parenthetical notation that
                  >> allows me to tag/parse a sentence, and then extract both the
                  >> production rules and the lexicon directly from a collection of tagged
                  >> sentences. Something like this:
                  >>
                  >> Sentence: Bravely the wounded soldier struggled on.
                  >>
                  >> Tagged/parsed:
                  >>
                  >> SNT(RB(Bravely) SNT(ND(DT(the) NJ(JJ(wounded) NN(soldier)))
                  >> VBP(VB(struggled) RBP(on))))
                  >>
                  >> Words removed:
                  >>
                  >> SNT(RB SNT(ND(DT NJ(JJ NN)) VBP(VB RBP)))
                  >>
                  >> Rules extracted:
                  >>
                  >> ND(DT NJ)
                  >> NJ(JJ NN)
                  >> SNT(ND VBP)
                  >> SNT(RB SNT)
                  >> VBP(VB RBP)
                  >>
                  >> Lexicon extracted:
                  >>
                  >> DT(the)
                  >> JJ(wounded)
                  >> NN(soldier)
                  >> RB(bravely)
                  >> RBP(on)
                  >> VB(struggled)
                  >>
                  >> Sorted by word:
                  >>
                  >> bravely RB
                  >> on RBP
                  >> soldier NN
                  >> struggled VB
                  >> the DT
                  >> wounded JJ
                  >>
                  >> And, of course, when the same word shows up with different parts of
                  >> speech, all those alternatives would appear in the lexicon. My tags
                  >> are borrowed from the Brown Corpus tag set, with several modifications
                  >> to fit my specific application. (
                  >> http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/ccalas/tagsets/brown.html )
                  >>
                  >> --gary
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...>
                  >> wrote:
                  >> > I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "constituent" yet.
                  >> >
                  >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_(linguistics)
                  >> >
                  >> > The set of all constituents then, is all phrases and single words in the
                  >> > language. As the context becomes more known, the set of potential
                  >> > constituents is reduced to a subset. Note, however:
                  >> >
                  >> > The box ___ down.
                  >> >
                  >> > does not offer a constituent in the technical meaning of the word, but I
                  >> > still think that that is as close as you are likely to get. About all
                  >> that
                  >> > fits there is the subset of verbs that function and fit with the adverb
                  >> > down, though I'm not putting too much thought into that. However, if you
                  >> > start with:
                  >> >
                  >> > The box ___.
                  >> >
                  >> > You know that any of the following will fit:
                  >> >
                  >> > came in the mail today.
                  >> > fell down.
                  >> > is really rather large and ungainly to transport across the distance of
                  >> 16
                  >> > miles by foot both uphill an downhill.
                  >> >
                  >> > The context allows a much broader set of constituents. However, below
                  >> > constituents are just the parts of speech. The reason why verbs like
                  >> > "spoke" don't fit in the first sentence is that they lack some features.
                  >> > Some verbs will be transitive, and thus require a direct object. Some
                  >> verbs
                  >> > are ditransitive and require both a direct and indirect object. In this
                  >> > case, the feature is more that the verbs must describe movement.
                  >> >
                  >> > The box slides down.
                  >> > The box fell down.
                  >> > The box ran down.
                  >> > The box jumped down.
                  >> > The box teleported down.
                  >> > * The box spoke down.
                  >> > * The box thought down.
                  >> > * The box befriended down.
                  >> > x The box ascended down.
                  >> >
                  >> > That last sentence feels grammatical to me, though obviously it makes no
                  >> > sense, but the three marked with * are very much syntactically incorrect
                  >> > for me. The key thing is that slides, fell, ran, jumped, teleported, and
                  >> > ascended are all verbs which have the feature of describing motion.
                  >> >
                  >> > One question I have is, how are you defining/describing the grammar and
                  >> > lexicon of your language? Are you using a formal grammar notation like
                  >> the
                  >> > following?
                  >> >
                  >> > S -> NP VP
                  >> > NP -> (Det) N
                  >> > NP -> NP PP
                  >> > NP -> Adj NP
                  >> > PP -> Prep NP
                  >> > VP -> V
                  >> > VP -> VP Adv
                  >> > etc.
                  >> >
                  >> > You may want to identify that adverbs like "down" must modify a verb with
                  >> > the feature of "motion", and then for every motion verb, add that feature
                  >> > to a list of features. Other features you should probably have is the
                  >> > transitivity of the verb.
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Ralph DeCarli <omnivore@...
                  >> >wrote:
                  >> >
                  >> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:20:30 -0600
                  >> >> George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:
                  >> >>
                  >> >> >
                  >> >> > Do you consider the instrument or other prepositional elements
                  >> >> > inherently part of the verb?
                  >> >> >
                  >> >> In this specific case I consider the fork to be a data element of
                  >> >> the 'eating' predicate, if that makes any sense. I tend to think of
                  >> >> the language in data modeling terms.
                  >> >>
                  >> >> A given prepositional phrase could modify the subject, the object or
                  >> >> the predicate, but it can't modify the entire sentence. I think this
                  >> >> actually stems from my general fear of 'global variables'.
                  >> >>
                  >> >> In other words, I'm really still more of a programmer and a "data
                  >> >> bigot" than a linguist, so my conlang (or con-patois, more
                  >> >> accurately) is going to reflect my learned habits.
                  >> >>
                  >> >> Ralph
                  >> >> --
                  >> >>
                  >> >> Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
                  >> >> They haven't decided what it looks like yet.
                  >> >>
                  >>
                • Jeff Sheets
                  I have never seen Link Grammars before. I ve generally approached natural and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It s definitely an
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jan 27, 2013
                    I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached natural
                    and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's
                    definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it definitely has
                    a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages). Seems
                    to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't
                    explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm
                    biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my own
                    conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that
                    grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is
                    separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving only
                    context clues in the lexicon.


                    On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:

                    > Interesting links. Thank you. I ordered a used copy of that book
                    > (Grammar as Science).
                    >
                    > Are you familiar with Link Grammars? I wrote a parser based on a link
                    > grammar several years ago. Here's a good introduction:
                    >
                    > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/link/pub/www/papers/ps/LG-IWPT93.pdf
                    >
                    > --gary
                    >
                    > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > Interesting choices for the names of categories/tags. I'm a bit too used
                    > to
                    > > Phrase Structure Rules to have figured that say RB means adverb, or that
                    > JJ
                    > > means adjective. But how you name your tags isn't important so long as
                    > the
                    > > system is consistent.
                    > >
                    > > Some other links for you. The first is a link to a Coursera online class
                    > on
                    > > natural language processing, which I think most closely matches your
                    > > interest. Might give you an idea of how academics are approaching the
                    > > problem today. NLP is without doubt an extremely difficult task for
                    > > computers.
                    > >
                    > > https://www.coursera.org/course/nlangp
                    > >
                    > > This next link is a crash course to Phrase Structure Rules. It gives an
                    > > idea of how I approach syntax, and also shows just how ambiguous natural
                    > > languages can be, and thus how difficult it can be to translate them
                    > > automatically with computers.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > http://people.umass.edu/afarudi/Phrase%20Structure%20Rules-Kyle%20Johnson.pdf
                    > >
                    > > If you have some money you can afford to spend, less than $50, I highly
                    > > recommend the following textbook:
                    > >
                    > > http://www.amazon.com/Grammar-as-Science-Richard-Larson/dp/026251303X
                    > >
                    > > It's a thorough read on how syntax is approached on its own, including
                    > how
                    > > to deal with features of words and phrases in a grammar (such as verbs of
                    > > motion as a feature, locative, dative, accusative in noun phrases, etc.)
                    > > and how to deal with movement of constituents in a sentence. Don't let
                    > its
                    > > cartoony diagrams fool you, either. It gets into the really complex
                    > > syntactic structures just as much as it does simplistic ones. Available
                    > in
                    > > paperback and a kindle version, and used versions at quite a low price.
                    > >
                    > > Now, I wish there was a nice, concise, definitive, and standardized list
                    > of
                    > > English phrase structure rules... but as far as I know, there is no such
                    > > compilation. Primarily because linguists don't necessarily agree on how
                    > to
                    > > deal with the really complex issues of English syntax.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >> This is very interesting. Thanks for posting that link. I'll have to
                    > >> spend some more time looking into that.
                    > >>
                    > >> As for my formal grammar, I'm using a parenthetical notation that
                    > >> allows me to tag/parse a sentence, and then extract both the
                    > >> production rules and the lexicon directly from a collection of tagged
                    > >> sentences. Something like this:
                    > >>
                    > >> Sentence: Bravely the wounded soldier struggled on.
                    > >>
                    > >> Tagged/parsed:
                    > >>
                    > >> SNT(RB(Bravely) SNT(ND(DT(the) NJ(JJ(wounded) NN(soldier)))
                    > >> VBP(VB(struggled) RBP(on))))
                    > >>
                    > >> Words removed:
                    > >>
                    > >> SNT(RB SNT(ND(DT NJ(JJ NN)) VBP(VB RBP)))
                    > >>
                    > >> Rules extracted:
                    > >>
                    > >> ND(DT NJ)
                    > >> NJ(JJ NN)
                    > >> SNT(ND VBP)
                    > >> SNT(RB SNT)
                    > >> VBP(VB RBP)
                    > >>
                    > >> Lexicon extracted:
                    > >>
                    > >> DT(the)
                    > >> JJ(wounded)
                    > >> NN(soldier)
                    > >> RB(bravely)
                    > >> RBP(on)
                    > >> VB(struggled)
                    > >>
                    > >> Sorted by word:
                    > >>
                    > >> bravely RB
                    > >> on RBP
                    > >> soldier NN
                    > >> struggled VB
                    > >> the DT
                    > >> wounded JJ
                    > >>
                    > >> And, of course, when the same word shows up with different parts of
                    > >> speech, all those alternatives would appear in the lexicon. My tags
                    > >> are borrowed from the Brown Corpus tag set, with several modifications
                    > >> to fit my specific application. (
                    > >> http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/ccalas/tagsets/brown.html )
                    > >>
                    > >> --gary
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...>
                    > >> wrote:
                    > >> > I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "constituent" yet.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_(linguistics)
                    > >> >
                    > >> > The set of all constituents then, is all phrases and single words in
                    > the
                    > >> > language. As the context becomes more known, the set of potential
                    > >> > constituents is reduced to a subset. Note, however:
                    > >> >
                    > >> > The box ___ down.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > does not offer a constituent in the technical meaning of the word,
                    > but I
                    > >> > still think that that is as close as you are likely to get. About all
                    > >> that
                    > >> > fits there is the subset of verbs that function and fit with the
                    > adverb
                    > >> > down, though I'm not putting too much thought into that. However, if
                    > you
                    > >> > start with:
                    > >> >
                    > >> > The box ___.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > You know that any of the following will fit:
                    > >> >
                    > >> > came in the mail today.
                    > >> > fell down.
                    > >> > is really rather large and ungainly to transport across the distance
                    > of
                    > >> 16
                    > >> > miles by foot both uphill an downhill.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > The context allows a much broader set of constituents. However, below
                    > >> > constituents are just the parts of speech. The reason why verbs like
                    > >> > "spoke" don't fit in the first sentence is that they lack some
                    > features.
                    > >> > Some verbs will be transitive, and thus require a direct object. Some
                    > >> verbs
                    > >> > are ditransitive and require both a direct and indirect object. In
                    > this
                    > >> > case, the feature is more that the verbs must describe movement.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > The box slides down.
                    > >> > The box fell down.
                    > >> > The box ran down.
                    > >> > The box jumped down.
                    > >> > The box teleported down.
                    > >> > * The box spoke down.
                    > >> > * The box thought down.
                    > >> > * The box befriended down.
                    > >> > x The box ascended down.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > That last sentence feels grammatical to me, though obviously it makes
                    > no
                    > >> > sense, but the three marked with * are very much syntactically
                    > incorrect
                    > >> > for me. The key thing is that slides, fell, ran, jumped, teleported,
                    > and
                    > >> > ascended are all verbs which have the feature of describing motion.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > One question I have is, how are you defining/describing the grammar
                    > and
                    > >> > lexicon of your language? Are you using a formal grammar notation like
                    > >> the
                    > >> > following?
                    > >> >
                    > >> > S -> NP VP
                    > >> > NP -> (Det) N
                    > >> > NP -> NP PP
                    > >> > NP -> Adj NP
                    > >> > PP -> Prep NP
                    > >> > VP -> V
                    > >> > VP -> VP Adv
                    > >> > etc.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > You may want to identify that adverbs like "down" must modify a verb
                    > with
                    > >> > the feature of "motion", and then for every motion verb, add that
                    > feature
                    > >> > to a list of features. Other features you should probably have is the
                    > >> > transitivity of the verb.
                    > >> >
                    > >> >
                    > >> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Ralph DeCarli <
                    > omnivore@...
                    > >> >wrote:
                    > >> >
                    > >> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:20:30 -0600
                    > >> >> George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:
                    > >> >>
                    > >> >> >
                    > >> >> > Do you consider the instrument or other prepositional elements
                    > >> >> > inherently part of the verb?
                    > >> >> >
                    > >> >> In this specific case I consider the fork to be a data element of
                    > >> >> the 'eating' predicate, if that makes any sense. I tend to think of
                    > >> >> the language in data modeling terms.
                    > >> >>
                    > >> >> A given prepositional phrase could modify the subject, the object or
                    > >> >> the predicate, but it can't modify the entire sentence. I think this
                    > >> >> actually stems from my general fear of 'global variables'.
                    > >> >>
                    > >> >> In other words, I'm really still more of a programmer and a "data
                    > >> >> bigot" than a linguist, so my conlang (or con-patois, more
                    > >> >> accurately) is going to reflect my learned habits.
                    > >> >>
                    > >> >> Ralph
                    > >> >> --
                    > >> >>
                    > >> >> Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
                    > >> >> They haven't decided what it looks like yet.
                    > >> >>
                    > >>
                    >
                  • Gary Shannon
                    I agree for conlang purposes. Link grammars are kind of fun to play with, though. They do have some problems, especially using conjunctions. A sentence like
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jan 27, 2013
                      I agree for conlang purposes. Link grammars are kind of fun to play
                      with, though. They do have some problems, especially using
                      conjunctions. A sentence like "He stole the tarts and ran away." can't
                      be parsed with their link grammar because "ran" doesn't have a subject
                      that can be linked without crossing lines. So they have to make a
                      special "cheat" pass to resolve those kinds of problems. That makes it
                      less than elegant as far as I'm concerned.

                      --gary

                      On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...> wrote:
                      > I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached natural
                      > and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's
                      > definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it definitely has
                      > a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages). Seems
                      > to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't
                      > explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm
                      > biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my own
                      > conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that
                      > grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is
                      > separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving only
                      > context clues in the lexicon.
                    • Leonardo Castro
                      How old is the link grammar concept? My conlang works this way but I wasn t aware this already existed as a concept. Até mais! Leonardo
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jan 28, 2013
                        How old is the "link grammar" concept? My conlang works this way but I
                        wasn't aware this already existed as a concept.

                        Até mais!

                        Leonardo


                        2013/1/27 Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>:
                        > I agree for conlang purposes. Link grammars are kind of fun to play
                        > with, though. They do have some problems, especially using
                        > conjunctions. A sentence like "He stole the tarts and ran away." can't
                        > be parsed with their link grammar because "ran" doesn't have a subject
                        > that can be linked without crossing lines. So they have to make a
                        > special "cheat" pass to resolve those kinds of problems. That makes it
                        > less than elegant as far as I'm concerned.
                        >
                        > --gary
                        >
                        > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...> wrote:
                        >> I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached natural
                        >> and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's
                        >> definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it definitely has
                        >> a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages). Seems
                        >> to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't
                        >> explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm
                        >> biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my own
                        >> conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that
                        >> grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is
                        >> separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving only
                        >> context clues in the lexicon.
                      • And Rosta
                        ... I first encountered Link Grammar in the 90s. It makes used of Dependency Grammar, whose origins go back to the Middle Ages (see a study by Michael
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jan 28, 2013
                          On Jan 28, 2013 10:19 AM, "Leonardo Castro" <leolucas1980@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > How old is the "link grammar" concept? My conlang works this way but I
                          > wasn't aware this already existed as a concept.

                          I first encountered Link Grammar in the 90s. It makes used of Dependency
                          Grammar, whose origins go back to the Middle Ages (see a study by Michael
                          Covington on this), and Lexicalism, which dates back to a famous work by
                          Chomsky from the early 70s whose title my ageing brain is not recalling for
                          me. (Ah, I remember now: Remarks on nominalization.)

                          > 2013/1/27 Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>:
                          > > I agree for conlang purposes. Link grammars are kind of fun to play
                          > > with, though. They do have some problems, especially using
                          > > conjunctions. A sentence like "He stole the tarts and ran away." can't
                          > > be parsed with their link grammar because "ran" doesn't have a subject
                          > > that can be linked without crossing lines. So they have to make a
                          > > special "cheat" pass to resolve those kinds of problems. That makes it
                          > > less than elegant as far as I'm concerned.

                          I don't know that that's a problem with the Link Grammar approach per se.
                          Rather the problem is with a parse that will build structure consisting
                          only of nodes uniquely expressed by a phonological word. If "he" is subject
                          of a word whose complement is "stole the cakes and ran away", the crossing
                          links go away.

                          > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...>
                          wrote:
                          > >> I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached
                          natural
                          > >> and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's
                          > >> definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it
                          definitely has
                          > >> a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages).
                          Seems
                          > >> to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't
                          > >> explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm
                          > >> biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my own
                          > >> conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that
                          > >> grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is
                          > >> separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving
                          only
                          > >> context clues in the lexicon.

                          Even if we accept your reasoning, this doesn't entail a rejection of
                          lexicalism, because the part of the lexical entry specifying valency
                          (subcategorization) might still be located in the grammar zone of the brain.

                          It's not at all true that linguists reject lexicalism. Indeed, most
                          cognitive linguists probably accept it; I'm thinking particularly of
                          usage-based theories.

                          --And.
                        • Jeff Sheets
                          ... You re correct. I should ve added some before linguists are fairly certain... Ultimately, I believe it s useful to distinguish between syntactic rules
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jan 28, 2013
                            On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:

                            > > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...>
                            > wrote:
                            > > >> I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached
                            > natural
                            > > >> and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's
                            > > >> definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it
                            > definitely has
                            > > >> a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages).
                            > Seems
                            > > >> to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't
                            > > >> explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm
                            > > >> biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my
                            > own
                            > > >> conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that
                            > > >> grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is
                            > > >> separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving
                            > only
                            > > >> context clues in the lexicon.
                            >
                            > Even if we accept your reasoning, this doesn't entail a rejection of
                            > lexicalism, because the part of the lexical entry specifying valency
                            > (subcategorization) might still be located in the grammar zone of the
                            > brain.
                            >
                            > It's not at all true that linguists reject lexicalism. Indeed, most
                            > cognitive linguists probably accept it; I'm thinking particularly of
                            > usage-based theories.
                            >
                            > --And.
                            >

                            You're correct. I should've added "some" before "linguists are fairly
                            certain..." Ultimately, I believe it's useful to distinguish between
                            syntactic rules and lexical features, since doing so will tend to greatly
                            reduce the number of times a particular syntactic rule needs to be stated.
                            Perhaps the brain stores the rule in some fashion multiple times for each
                            lexeme that uses it, but I don't feel that an extremely complex, only
                            partially understood, microscopic parallel processing device such as the
                            brain should be my sole guide to studying language. Especially when a
                            simpler grammar of syntactic rules can account for what we see in produced
                            speech.

                            Then again, this is veering quite a bit off of the original topic, namely,
                            what to call a section of a sentence that is missing, and perhaps, how to
                            decide what can possibly be in that position. Constituent is the closest I
                            can think of to that concept, though it is loaded with additional notions
                            that don't quite match what Gary is looking for. Perhaps "node" may make
                            more sense, but that presupposes looking at the structure of a sentence as
                            a tree, and in Gary's context of programming, doesn't seem particularly
                            enlightening to his future-self audience. Maybe "potential node" or
                            "potential set"? Also, good luck, Gary. A quick perusal of Google Translate
                            (and other automated translator) results will indicate that the state of
                            the art of computer translation is still sketchy at best. Here's hoping you
                            make a breakthrough!
                          • Gary Shannon
                            ... I doubt I ll make any breakthroughs. I m still aiming at a conlang into which I can auto-translate from English. Since I can engineer the language to fit
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jan 28, 2013
                              On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Jeff Sheets <sheets.jeff@...> wrote:

                              > ...Also, good luck, Gary. A quick perusal of Google Translate
                              > (and other automated translator) results will indicate that the state of
                              > the art of computer translation is still sketchy at best. Here's hoping you
                              > make a breakthrough!

                              I doubt I'll make any breakthroughs. I'm still aiming at a conlang
                              into which I can auto-translate from English. Since I can engineer the
                              language to fit my machine translation needs it makes the problem a
                              LOT simpler than machine translations into languages that I can't just
                              change to make them easier for the computer. For one thing, my conlang
                              will, by design, have NO idioms. Every statement in the conlang will
                              be literal.

                              --gary
                            • Leonardo Castro
                              ... Interesting! I think I was first indirectly exposed to this concept by means of Lojban. Then, in my conlang, I decided that each verb could have only 2
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jan 28, 2013
                                2013/1/28 And Rosta <and.rosta@...>:
                                > On Jan 28, 2013 10:19 AM, "Leonardo Castro" <leolucas1980@...> wrote:
                                >>
                                >> How old is the "link grammar" concept? My conlang works this way but I
                                >> wasn't aware this already existed as a concept.
                                >
                                > I first encountered Link Grammar in the 90s. It makes used of Dependency
                                > Grammar, whose origins go back to the Middle Ages (see a study by Michael
                                > Covington on this), and Lexicalism, which dates back to a famous work by
                                > Chomsky from the early 70s whose title my ageing brain is not recalling for
                                > me. (Ah, I remember now: Remarks on nominalization.)

                                Interesting!

                                I think I was first indirectly exposed to this concept by means of
                                Lojban. Then, in my conlang, I decided that each verb could have only
                                2 slots ("subject" and "object"). The main goal is to have the passive
                                voice of each verb unambiguously.

                                In the book "Inferências Lexicais e Interpretação de Redes de
                                Predicados" (the second author of this book was my professor), they
                                apply the Graph Theory (from Maths) to predicates, considering all
                                language relations as "directed graphs". They even define figures of
                                speech by means of mathematics-like functions.
                              • Ralph DeCarli
                                You might find Apertium helpful in your term search. http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/Main_Page The Apertium translation system uses an intermediate wrapper
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jan 28, 2013
                                  You might find Apertium helpful in your term search.

                                  http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/Main_Page

                                  The Apertium translation system uses an intermediate 'wrapper' layer
                                  for translating between romance languages. Their descriptions of the
                                  meta-grammatical categories might help.

                                  Their wrapper layer was one of the sources of inspiration for my
                                  conlang. They have a similar, yet different wrapper for every language pair
                                  and the classic way to avoid the proliferation wrappers is to create
                                  a single intermediate format that can comprehend all languages.

                                  I know that's not possible, but it was an influence.

                                  Ralph
                                  ------------
                                  On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:03:55 -0800
                                  Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:

                                  > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Jeff Sheets
                                  > <sheets.jeff@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > ...Also, good luck, Gary. A quick perusal of Google Translate
                                  > > (and other automated translator) results will indicate that the
                                  > > state of the art of computer translation is still sketchy at
                                  > > best. Here's hoping you make a breakthrough!
                                  >
                                  > I doubt I'll make any breakthroughs. I'm still aiming at a conlang
                                  > into which I can auto-translate from English. Since I can engineer
                                  > the language to fit my machine translation needs it makes the
                                  > problem a LOT simpler than machine translations into languages
                                  > that I can't just change to make them easier for the computer. For
                                  > one thing, my conlang will, by design, have NO idioms. Every
                                  > statement in the conlang will be literal.
                                  >
                                  > --gary

                                  --

                                  Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
                                  They haven't decided what it looks like yet.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.