budd@mist.cs.orst.edu (Tim Budd) (10/19/88)
You may remember that Context Free Languages were discovered by a Linguist, Noam Chomsky, not a computer scientist. At the time (mid 1950's), there was great hope that a CFL, or at worst a CSL (context sensitive language) could be found that would describe English, and other such grammars developed for other natural languages. Such efforts more or less met with utter and complete defeat in the late 50's and 60's. Indeed so much so that some people working in understanding English (such at the folks at Yale), almost totally abandoned any notion of syntax, and proceeded with just a semantic analysis of utterances. So I fear your quest will be a futile one; the best you can hope for is a grammar for a rather stilted and minimal subset of English. <sentence> ::= <subject> <verb> <object> <subject> ::= I | teachers | policemen | the mob <verb> ::= eat | love | detest <object> ::= mice | chocolate | teachers | little children
ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (10/20/88)
In article <6946@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> budd@mist.UUCP (Tim Budd) writes: >Linguist, Noam Chomsky, not a computer scientist. <At the time (mid 1950's), there was great hope that a CFL, or at worst a CSL >(context sensitive language) could be found that would describe English, and >other such grammars developed for other natural languages. even stilted English would be enough for me. I just want to talk to my Unix system in a more converstational manner, I have having the keystrokes 'ls -al' burned into my brain, wasting those valuable neural pathways. >Such efforts more or less met with utter and complete defeat in the late >50's and 60's. Interesting that some of the technology lived on in the educational system: (ie my school system) 'phonics' (the name given to my 3rd grade language class), where we learned S -> N V, and more elaborate sentence diagramming in 7th grade: S -> NP VP, NP -> prep N, N -> cat,dog, prep -> about, above & 50 others. Then, in college, I learned about REAL linguistics and affix hopping and such. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius3.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412) CMU-BUGS Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA "You can do what you want with my computer, but leave me alone!8-)"
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (10/20/88)
From article <6946@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, by budd@mist.cs.orst.edu (Tim Budd): " You may remember that Context Free Languages were discovered by a " Linguist, Noam Chomsky, not a computer scientist. At the time (mid " 1950's), there was great hope that a CFL, or at worst a CSL (context " sensitive language) could be found that would describe English, and " other such grammars developed for other natural languages. " Such efforts more or less met with utter and complete defeat in the late " 50's and 60's. Indeed so much so that some people working in understanding Context free phrase structure grammar lives! It's the basis of the best current theory of syntax, GPSG -- Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (10/20/88)
In article <3349@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) writes:
+even stilted English would be enough for me. I just want to talk to my
+Unix system in a more converstational manner, I have having the keystrokes
+'ls -al' burned into my brain, wasting those valuable neural pathways.
Let's see, if your UNIX system understood conversational English only,
you'd have to say:
Give me a long listing of everything in the directory.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!rob OR rob@PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E750A, San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiabondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Clay M Bond) (10/20/88)
Tim Budd: >You may remember that Context Free Languages were discovered by a >Linguist, Noam Chomsky, not a computer scientist. No, I don't, actually. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. They certainly weren't "discovered" though if this is supposed to mean that Nim first proposed that natural language could be generated with a CFG then it makes more sense (though that, too is wrong. Harris, not Nim.) >1950's), there was great hope that a CFL, or at worst a CSL (context >sensitive language) could be found that would describe English, and You mean CF/SG, don't you? If language X can be generated by a CFG, then language X is a CFL; a CFL is not going to describe English. >Such efforts more or less met with utter and complete defeat in the late >50's and 60's. No argument. >Indeed so much so that some people working in understanding >English (such at the folks at Yale), almost totally abandoned any >notion of syntax, and proceeded with just a semantic analysis of >utterances. I fail to see what the difference is, assuming the semantic analyses used are mathematical possible-worlds models which have nothing to do with reality, much less language. You're manipulating symbols. How is manipulating semantic symbols different from manipulating syntactic ones, save that the former is more challenging since it's more obvious that symbol systems don't work. What? This construction doesn't fit the rule? Write another rule/feature, of course! The plight of the semanticist is no less futile than the syntactician. -- <<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<***>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>> << Clay Bond, IU Department of Leather er uh, Linguistics >> << ARPA: bondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu AKA: Le Nouveau Marquis de Sade >> <<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<***>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>
bondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Clay M Bond) (10/20/88)
Ralph Hyre: >Unix system in a more converstational manner, I have having the keystrokes >'ls -al' burned into my brain, wasting those valuable neural pathways. You might want to write an alias in your .login file to give it a rest. Suggestions ... alias trash ls -al, alias junk ls -al, alias GOP ls -al, the name of your current least-favorite person ... and not only do you give your synapses a rest, but you take out some frustration as well. For a while I had alias noam rm ... and after a week or so of deleting files, I felt better. -- <<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<***>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>> << Clay Bond, IU Department of Leather er uh, Linguistics >> << ARPA: bondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu AKA: Le Nouveau Marquis de Sade >> <<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<***>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>
kevin@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kevin S. Van Horn) (10/21/88)
In article <6946@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> budd@mist.UUCP (Tim Budd) writes: >Such efforts more or less met with utter and complete defeat in the late >50's and 60's. Indeed so much so that some people working in understanding >English (such at the folks at Yale), almost totally abandoned any >notion of syntax, and proceeded with just a semantic analysis of >utterances. So I fear your quest will be a futile one; the best you >can hope for is a grammar for a rather stilted and minimal subset of >English. I think that Fred Thompson, of the Caltech C.S. Dep't., would not entirely agree with this statement. His work is in natural-language interfaces and, though recognizing its limits, he has managed to do quite a bit using a syntax-based approach. The person who originally asked about this may want to write Dr. Thompson, at Caltech 256-80, Pasadena, CA 91125. Kevin S. Van Horn
Dave Lawrence (10/21/88)
rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) writes: >+even stilted English would be enough for me. I just want to talk to my >+Unix system in a more converstational manner, I have having the keystrokes >+'ls -al' burned into my brain, wasting those valuable neural pathways. > >Let's see, if your UNIX system understood conversational English only, >you'd have to say: > > Give me a long listing of everything in the directory. or, more accurately, you would have to tell it Give me a long listing (permissions, groups and all that good stuff) of every file in the -current- directory. (unless you had a parser that understood implied words ...) Wouldn't you just love to write the parser that could correctly handle, in the English (not -American- (personal pet peeve) |:-) language the equivalent of the following... alias news-dates grep 'Date:' /usenet/spool/\$1/* | sed 's/.*:.*: \(.*\)/\1/' | sed 's/^. / &/' | sort | sort -f -M +1 | sed 's/\(.* \)..:.*$/\1/' | uniq -c Well, it might not look quite as bad, but I wouldn't say it to mum at Christmas dinner .... Cheerio, Dave -- g l o r i o u sex i s t e n c e EMAIL: tale@rpitsmts.bitnet, tale%mts.rpi.edu@rpitsgw, tale@pawl.rpi.edu
smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) (10/21/88)
>You may remember that Context Free Languages were discovered by a >Linguist, Noam Chomsky, not a computer scientist. At the time (mid >...... Eh? I think somebody forgot Type 0 = Turing Machine. Anyway, check out Appendix ?B of Terry Winograd's book, some or other, Part I: Syntax. No, nobody has a complete, formal syntax/semantics of any natural language, but, you said you wanted it for a game? this kind of stuff covers most cases. For what it doesn't, just respond Eh? I'm sorry, I don't understand; could you repeat that using simpler sentence?
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (10/22/88)
In article <2509@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >Context free phrase structure grammar lives! It's the basis of the >best current theory of syntax, GPSG -- Generalized Phrase Structure >Grammar. > Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu Greg, I would be interested in knowing the criteria by which you judge one 'current theory' of syntax to be better than the others. Why is GPSG better than HPSG, in your opinion? Than LFG? (Don't bother with GB. I don't want to stir up trouble. :-) -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
jkim@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Jay Kim) (10/22/88)
> <<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<***>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>> Clay Bond wrote: > a CFL is not going to describe English. Could you tell us a convincing evidence for this? If you are going to bring up 50's argument based on a long-distant dependency, I would recommend you to read first Gerald Gazdar (1982) Phrase structure grammar. In Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 131-186.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (10/23/88)
From article <8330@bcsaic.UUCP>, by rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik): " Greg, I would be interested in knowing the criteria by which you judge one " 'current theory' of syntax to be better than the others. Why is GPSG " better than HPSG, in your opinion? Than LFG? (Don't bother with GB. I " don't want to stir up trouble. :-) Actually, it's only context free phrase structure grammar I'm prepared to defend, not GPSG specifically. The nice thing about GPSG is that a GPSG description abbreviates a finite number of CF phrase structure rules, and so describes a context free language. If and to the extent the other theories you mentioned allow a similar interpretation, I love them, too. But I don't know whether they do. I should admit that I find much of the current literature in syntax difficult to understand, since though it purports to be about syntactic theory, it seems really only to concern conciseness or convenience of description. This includes GPSG, the book, by Gazdar, Klein, Pullum, and Sag. To what I said in reply to Walter Rolandi, I'd like to add something about the local nature of lexical subcategorization, again, following Gazdar. Subcategorization of items with respect to sister constituents is straightforward in a context free phrase structure grammar, and this is the only, or at least the predominate, kind of subcategorization found in natural language. However, I'm not sure it's possible to make this out as a prediction of CFPSG without an appeal to simplicity, since one can also describe certain non-local subcategorizations. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu