Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!uthub!ecf!edusoft From: edusoft@ecf.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: In layman's terms. Message-ID: <167@mv05.ecf.toronto.edu> Date: Tue, 26-May-87 18:12:36 EDT Article-I.D.: mv05.167 Posted: Tue May 26 18:12:36 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 27-May-87 01:43:40 EDT References: <13263@watmath.UUCP> Reply-To: edusoft@mv05.ecf.UUCP (Educational Software) Organization: Engineering Computing Facility, University of Toronto Lines: 44 Keywords: English, Backus-Naur Form, syntax. In article <13263@watmath.UUCP> erhoogerbeet@watmath.UUCP (Edwin (Deepthot)) writes: >Is there a Backus-Naur Form for the English language itself or is this too >complicated? If not, how is it that we can understand a huge variety of >different sentence forms and still recognize that some are syntactically >incorrect? Basically, what I am asking is it possible to do syntactic >checking as if "compiling" a sentence with rules set down in some BNF? The most easily locatable reference I know of for a phrase-structure (you'll have to convert to BNF) grammar of English is: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar Gerald Gazdar, Ewen Klein, Geoffrey Pullum and Ivan Sag 1985 Blackwell and Harvard University Press Mind you, that'll be quite a task, as GPSG abstracts away from atomic node labels and order in constituents. You'd probably have to write a GPSG to BNF compiler. >To be semantically correct, a sentence must be syntactically correct. A lot of people would agree with this statement, but this does not allow for partial interpretation of sentences. It is also possible to interpret syntactically incorrect sentences, such as: Me went to the store. >But there must be someone out there on the net who can set me straight and >do it in layman's terms. I have my doubts whether anything in linguistics can be explained in layman's terms. bill idsardi computational linguist educational software products 1263 bay st. toronto, ontario canada M5R 2C1 922-0087 ...utzoo!utai!utecfa!edusoft