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 sentence: "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. :wq -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
