On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:32:39 -0800
Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> 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.

> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Ralph DeCarli
> <[log in to unmask]> 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:
> --gary

[log in to unmask]  ==>  Ralph L. De Carli

Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
They haven't decided what it looks like yet.