Hi friends,
Is there any computer software at the moment that can analyse a sentence into
nouns, verbs, etc?
Many thanks,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=+
Cormac Murphy,
Trinity College Dublin,
Ireland.
Hi all….and help!
I am not very knowledgable in the languages sciences and would like to get
any help you can give me about the following:
1. Any refernces concerning questions.
2. Any references concerning the question-words(what, who,where, when,how,why)
Thanks in advance,
Cormac?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cormac Murphy,
School of Systems and Data Studies,
Trinity College Dublin,
Ireland.
In article <14…@lanl.gov> nmsc…@lanl.gov (John Lopez) writes:
#
#I was wondering how to say ‘yes’ in Classical Latin. My dictionaries
#contain no information on this. Was it a formula?
#
#Was there a another way of saying ‘no’?
I was taught to say ite for yes and minime for no.
They both sounded pretty fishy to me.
–
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"A blow with a word strikes deeper than a blow with a sword."
Sir Richard Burton
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <1…@indep1.UUCP> p…@indep1.MCS.COM (Peter Franks) writes:
>I’ve been thinking about this for a while. While I have seen postings
>about the Craft of Writing on various newsgroups that I read, rec.arts.books
>and rec.arts.sf-lovers in particular, I’ve often thought that there should
>be a special group for these types of discussions.
>So how about it? Is it time to create rec.arts.writing? I was also thinking
>along the lines of two groups:
> rec.arts.writing.fiction, and
> rec.arts.writing.non-fiction
>but there probably won’t be enough traffic, at least at first, to keep both
>going.
>There could be discussions about the topics mentioned above by Brian, as well
>as others, including (but not limited to) reviews of various books about the
>Craft; notices for workshops, writers’ group meetings & formations; maybe
>even marketing info, like who’s buying what (although that may fall into a
>gray area for USENET).
>I don’t have the facilities for actually counting votes here, but if
>someone else will volunteer to do the vote counting, I’ll try to put
>together the Call for Discussion and Call for Vote.
I too have been thinking that there should be a group for writers.
However, as a professional writer, I don’t think it should be a rec
group. Misc.writing would be more appropriate.
I don’t write for recreation. I write for a living. And I think even
those who are trying to write but who haven’t been published have as
their ultimate goal getting paid for their work, whether it be
scholarly articles or romance novels.
There are a lot of people on the net who write professionally in one way
or another — journalists and technical writers probably make up the
vast majority — not to mention those for whom writing documentation,
journal articles, memos and other materials make up a big part of their job,
even if they’re not "writers," per se.
A misc.writing group would give us a place for all those discussions
about usage (correct pronouns and such) that are showing up in several groups
(notably rec.arts.books and sci.lang), as well as serving the purposes Peter
Franks mentions.
To begin with, I think one group, misc.writing, should be sufficient.
Later, if traffic warrants, we can consider adding other groups along
the lines of:
misc.writing for general discussion of writing,
techniques, usage, markets, etc.
misc.writing.tech for technical writing and documentation
misc.writing.news for journalists
misc.writing.fiction for fiction
And so on. Initially, we may want to set up some sort of subject line
convention to handle these different categories.
But a group for discussion of writing is definitely a good idea!
L.A.Z. Smith …ast!smith!leah
Wheeling, Illinois leah%sm…@ast.dsd.northrop.com
Consider the following:
A) Will you come? Yes. (Meaning: I will come)
B) Will you come? No. (Meaning: I won’t come)
C) Won’t you come? Yes. (Meaning: I will come)
D) Won’t you come? No. (Meaning: I won’t come)
In English the yes/no always confirms/negates the verb, regardless of whether
the question what an affirmative or a negative one. This is really quite
peculiar, and some people find it quite hard to learn. Furthermore,
different languages treat these sentences differently.
To yield the same meaning as the answers above, Russians would answer:
A) Da. B) Nyet. C) Nyet. D) Da. Because for them the da/nyet relates to
the whole sentence, not just the verb.
German, French, and Danish follow yet another pattern. They answer
respectively:
A) Ja, oui, ja. B) Nein, non, nej. C) Doch, si, jo. D) Nein, non, nej.
So they have a special word to use in case C.
What about other languages?
—
Claus Tondering | The number of seconds
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark | in a leap year is
E-mail: c…@dde.dk | sqrt(1E15)
I am a native speaker of english and I find
(1) the big red ball
better than
(2) the red big ball
but I don’t know why.
Do others feel the same way?
Is there a ‘rule’ which mandates (1) over (2) ?
Major
—-
+————————————————–+————————+
| Domain: ma…@pta.oz.au | Phone: + 61 9 474-2600 |
| UUCP: {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!pta.oz.au!major | Fax: + 61 9 474-1221 |
| Mail: Box T1680 GPO, Perth WA 6001, Australia | |
+————————————————–+————————+
In article <1991Feb14.221510.7…@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>, iad@chaos (Ivan Derzhanski) writes:
>On the other hand, the distinction between informal and formal singular (why
>only singular?) pronouns is a curse of NLs, and I insist it must not be
>included in ALs. Volapuk’s use of "ol" for one person and "ols" for more than
>one (in all cases) was probably the best.
Only singular? In the history of Spanish, the old familiar plural "vosotros"
has become obsolete, but was still active enough–like the French passe’ simple
–that my mother had to learn it in her Spanish classes. Confused my teachers
no end that I knew the forms when they hadn’t taught them, or even used texts
that showed them.
>Tensed infinitives are so very exotic (I can’t think of a single NL that has
>them), that I see no reason for putting them in Ido other than the ease with
>which this could be done. It’s like buying something that you don’t need only
>because it was very cheap.
Ancient Greek, with future versus present and aorist. The latter two were more
separated by aspect than by tense: In context, the "present" infinitive might
represent an "imperfect" rather than a "present."
Rich Alderson
alder…@leland.stanford.edu
That wasn’t my request — I do not
know why John Cowan attributed Nick’s
request to me.
I became interested in ergativity when I learned Marie-Louise Thomsen’s
book on Sumerian grammar that Sumerian is an ergative language. That means
that the subject of an intransitive verb is handled that same was as the
direct object of a transitive verb. But that is about all I know on the
subject.
While browsing in the libary, I found a book by Melcuk who seems to have
an approach to linguistics different to Chomsky’s and which claimed, among
other things, to be able to explain ergativity. Unfortunately, I found
it impossible with my background to read much of Melcuk’s book. Nevertheless
I would like to understand what he has to say and how it pertains to
ergativity.
Can someone who is familiar with the work of Melcuk’s school explain to me
what his work is about and how he explains ergativity. Perhaps aided with
your explanation, I can try again to make sense out of his book.
Forgive me for not posting the title. I don’t have the book and don’t
remember the title. That should not pose a problem for someone who is
familiar with his work, I hope.
Allan Adler
g…@ms.uky.edu
Does anybody know of a spelling checker for spanish, running on macintoshes?
I need one rather urgently.
Hints about prices and usefulness are specially welcome.
Kurt.
k…@rhi.hi.is
k…@raunvis.hi.is
