"Intro to Pyparsing" Article at ONLamp
csubich.spam.block at spam.subich.block.com
Mon Jan 30 16:08:30 EST 2006
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> And pave the way for a natural language parser. Maybe there's even some
> (sketchy) path now to link computer languages and natural languages. In
> my mind Python has always been closer to human languages than other
> programming languages. From what I learned about it, language
> recognition is the easy part, language production is what is hard. But
> even the easy part has a long way to go, and since we're also using a
I think you're underestimating just how far a "long" way to go is, for
natural language processing. I daresay that no current
computer-language parser will come even close to recognizing a
significant fraction of human language.
Using English, because that's the only language I'm fluent in, consider
"The horse raced past the barn fell."
It's just one of many "garden path sentences," where something that
occurs late in the sentence needs to trigger a reparse of the entire
sentence. This is made even worse because of the semantic meanings of
English words -- English, along with every other nonconstructed language
that I know of, is grammatically ambiguous, in that semantic meanings
are necessary to make 100% confident parses.
That's indeed the basis of a class of humour.
"Generating" human language -- turning concepts into words -- is the
easy part. A "concept->English" transformer would only need to
transform into a subset of English, and nobody will notice the difference.
It's just an object; it's not what you think.
More information about the Python-list