Parsing Techniques

[DKleinecke]

I haven't posted about parsing for a long time. So I thought
I'd offer a glimpse at what I am up to these days.

Here's a paragraph from a paper of the Pure English Society
(I like parsing Victorian prose because it seems so exotic
these days):

<quote>
3. Besides the class of words indicated in Mr. Pearsall
Smith's paper, there is another set of plural forms needing
attention, and that is the Greek words that denote the
various sciences and arts; there is in these an uncertainty
and inconsistency in the use of singular and plural forms.
We say Music and Physics, but should we say Ethic or Ethics,
Esthetic or Esthetics? Here again agreement on a general
rule to govern doubtful cases would be a boon. The
experience of writers and teachers who are in daily contact
with such words should make their opinions of value, and we
invite them to deal with the subject. The corresponding use
of Latin plurals taking singular verbs, as _Morals_, should
be brought under rule.
</quote>

I started out by removing the outer nominal material leaving

[X Besides O] there is O, and that is O; there is [L in
these] O. We say O, but should we say O? [L Here] again S
would be a boon. S should make O A, and we invite them to
deal with O. S should be brought under rule.

Here [ ... ] denotes an adjunct. L means a locative. X means
I am unsure what to call it. S and O are subject and object.
A is an adjectival phrase. I have left pronouns in this
skeleton - including the dummy "there". I have taken "be a
boon" and "bring under rule" as (verbal) idioms. Idiom
meaning idiosyncratic pattern.

The adjectival phrase is "of value" which I think is also
idiomatic.

That leaves the nominal phrases:

the class of words / indicated / in Mr. Pearsall Smith's
paper
another set of plural forms / needing attention
the Greek words / that denote the various sciences and arts
an uncertainty and inconsistency / in the use of singular
and plural forms
Music and Physics
Ethic or Ethics, Esthetic or Esthetics
agreement / on a general rule / to govern doubtful cases
the experience of writers and teachers / who are in daily
contact with such words
their opinions
the subject
the corresponding use of Latin plurals / taking singular
verbs /, as _Morals_

I wonder whether I should take the "the" back into the skeleton.
That would make it

[X Besides the O] there is O, and that is the O; there is
[L in these] O. We say O, but should we say O? [L Here]
again S would be a boon. The S should make O A, and we
invite them to deal with the O. The S should be brought
under rule.

This would make the "anaphoric" relationships clearer but at
some cost.

The '/' divide the nominal phrases into parts (note that I
treat "of" differently than other prepositions.

I would further parse
[S that] denote O
[S who] are A

I think I should treat "agreement on" as a whole and perhaps
also "uncertainty and inconsistency in". But my parsing is
still a work in progress and I might still change my mind
about any detail.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by DKleinecke
I haven't posted about parsing for a long time. So I thought
I'd offer a glimpse at what I am up to these days.
Here's a paragraph from a paper of the Pure English Society
(I like parsing Victorian prose because it seems so exotic
<quote>
3. Besides the class of words indicated in Mr. Pearsall
Smith's paper, there is another set of plural forms needing
attention, and that is the Greek words that denote the
various sciences and arts; there is in these an uncertainty
and inconsistency in the use of singular and plural forms.
We say Music and Physics, but should we say Ethic or Ethics,
Esthetic or Esthetics? Here again agreement on a general
rule to govern doubtful cases would be a boon. The
experience of writers and teachers who are in daily contact
with such words should make their opinions of value, and we
invite them to deal with the subject. The corresponding use
of Latin plurals taking singular verbs, as _Morals_, should
be brought under rule.
</quote>
I started out by removing the outer nominal material leaving
[X Besides O] there is O, and that is O; there is [L in
these] O. We say O, but should we say O? [L Here] again S
would be a boon. S should make O A, and we invite them to
deal with O. S should be brought under rule.
Here [ ... ] denotes an adjunct. L means a locative. X means
I am unsure what to call it. S and O are subject and object.
A is an adjectival phrase. I have left pronouns in this
skeleton - including the dummy "there". I have taken "be a
boon" and "bring under rule" as (verbal) idioms. Idiom
meaning idiosyncratic pattern.
The adjectival phrase is "of value" which I think is also
idiomatic.
the class of words / indicated / in Mr. Pearsall Smith's
paper
another set of plural forms / needing attention
the Greek words / that denote the various sciences and arts
an uncertainty and inconsistency / in the use of singular
and plural forms
Music and Physics
Ethic or Ethics, Esthetic or Esthetics
agreement / on a general rule / to govern doubtful cases
the experience of writers and teachers / who are in daily
contact with such words
their opinions
the subject
the corresponding use of Latin plurals / taking singular
verbs /, as _Morals_
I wonder whether I should take the "the" back into the skeleton.
That would make it
[X Besides the O] there is O, and that is the O; there is
[L in these] O. We say O, but should we say O? [L Here]
again S would be a boon. The S should make O A, and we
invite them to deal with the O. The S should be brought
under rule.
This would make the "anaphoric" relationships clearer but at
some cost.
The '/' divide the nominal phrases into parts (note that I
treat "of" differently than other prepositions.
I would further parse
[S that] denote O
[S who] are A
I think I should treat "agreement on" as a whole and perhaps
also "uncertainty and inconsistency in". But my parsing is
still a work in progress and I might still change my mind
about any detail.

Are you dreaming of a single unified grammar and syntax? Neurological
evidence gathered in the recent past rules out such systems and instead
considers the forming of a sentence as "recursive sequencing" comparable
to the way we move an arm, one muscle makes a beginning, a second muscle
adds a correction, a third one contributes, and so on. This insight helped
me write English (having been raised in a different langwitch), instead
of trying to build one single entirely correct and understandable sentence
I just go on. Also was the method of Edward de Vere alias William Shakepseare.
When I tutored pupils with difficulties in mathematics I played a parsing
game with them. Sentences are equations and clusters of equations, some
explicit others implicit. Now find the main equation, then the minor ones,
and spell out the implicit equations. This was helpful, and also works
with Shakespeare sonnets (as I demonstrated years ago in here). Try it with
the above Victorian monster of a sentence ...

[DKleinecke]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by DKleinecke
I haven't posted about parsing for a long time. So I thought
I'd offer a glimpse at what I am up to these days.
Here's a paragraph from a paper of the Pure English Society
(I like parsing Victorian prose because it seems so exotic
<quote>
3. Besides the class of words indicated in Mr. Pearsall
Smith's paper, there is another set of plural forms needing
attention, and that is the Greek words that denote the
various sciences and arts; there is in these an uncertainty
and inconsistency in the use of singular and plural forms.
We say Music and Physics, but should we say Ethic or Ethics,
Esthetic or Esthetics? Here again agreement on a general
rule to govern doubtful cases would be a boon. The
experience of writers and teachers who are in daily contact
with such words should make their opinions of value, and we
invite them to deal with the subject. The corresponding use
of Latin plurals taking singular verbs, as _Morals_, should
be brought under rule.
</quote>
I started out by removing the outer nominal material leaving
[X Besides O] there is O, and that is O; there is [L in
these] O. We say O, but should we say O? [L Here] again S
would be a boon. S should make O A, and we invite them to
deal with O. S should be brought under rule.
Here [ ... ] denotes an adjunct. L means a locative. X means
I am unsure what to call it. S and O are subject and object.
A is an adjectival phrase. I have left pronouns in this
skeleton - including the dummy "there". I have taken "be a
boon" and "bring under rule" as (verbal) idioms. Idiom
meaning idiosyncratic pattern.
The adjectival phrase is "of value" which I think is also
idiomatic.
the class of words / indicated / in Mr. Pearsall Smith's
paper
another set of plural forms / needing attention
the Greek words / that denote the various sciences and arts
an uncertainty and inconsistency / in the use of singular
and plural forms
Music and Physics
Ethic or Ethics, Esthetic or Esthetics
agreement / on a general rule / to govern doubtful cases
the experience of writers and teachers / who are in daily
contact with such words
their opinions
the subject
the corresponding use of Latin plurals / taking singular
verbs /, as _Morals_
I wonder whether I should take the "the" back into the skeleton.
That would make it
[X Besides the O] there is O, and that is the O; there is
[L in these] O. We say O, but should we say O? [L Here]
again S would be a boon. The S should make O A, and we
invite them to deal with the O. The S should be brought
under rule.
This would make the "anaphoric" relationships clearer but at
some cost.
The '/' divide the nominal phrases into parts (note that I
treat "of" differently than other prepositions.
I would further parse
[S that] denote O
[S who] are A
I think I should treat "agreement on" as a whole and perhaps
also "uncertainty and inconsistency in". But my parsing is
still a work in progress and I might still change my mind
about any detail.

Are you dreaming of a single unified grammar and syntax? Neurological
evidence gathered in the recent past rules out such systems and instead
considers the forming of a sentence as "recursive sequencing" comparable
to the way we move an arm, one muscle makes a beginning, a second muscle
adds a correction, a third one contributes, and so on. This insight helped
me write English (having been raised in a different langwitch), instead
of trying to build one single entirely correct and understandable sentence
I just go on. Also was the method of Edward de Vere alias William Shakepseare.
When I tutored pupils with difficulties in mathematics I played a parsing
game with them. Sentences are equations and clusters of equations, some
explicit others implicit. Now find the main equation, then the minor ones,
and spell out the implicit equations. This was helpful, and also works
with Shakespeare sonnets (as I demonstrated years ago in here). Try it with
the above Victorian monster of a sentence ...

I am trying to find the "best" way to parse English. So far I
keep changing the way I do it. Perhaps there is no "best". I
would be delighted if what I learn applies to other languages
than English but I suspect it will not. Unlike some people I
see no point in jumping to "universal" conclusions when I can't
even get an easier case (one language - English) to work.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by DKleinecke
I am trying to find the "best" way to parse English. So far I
keep changing the way I do it. Perhaps there is no "best". I
would be delighted if what I learn applies to other languages
than English but I suspect it will not. Unlike some people I
see no point in jumping to "universal" conclusions when I can't
even get an easier case (one language - English) to work.

Sorry, I don't understand your parsing. I halfway understand the Victorian
monster sentence, your parsing not at all. What I said about recursive
sequencing holds for any language. A parallel may be my recent experience
when I witnessed the origin of dancing. A little girl came running, saw
herself coined, stumbled but didn't fall, instead she turned her surplus
momentum into kind of a dance - beautiful. Edward de Vere alias William
Shakespeare can stumble into a sentence and then turn it into a dance
with the English language. If you quote a Shakespeare sentence, if possible
a difficult one, we might parse it in our different ways. But maybe others
understand you fine, so there is no problem.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by DKleinecke
I am trying to find the "best" way to parse English. So far I
keep changing the way I do it. Perhaps there is no "best". I
would be delighted if what I learn applies to other languages
than English but I suspect it will not. Unlike some people I
see no point in jumping to "universal" conclusions when I can't
even get an easier case (one language - English) to work.

Sorry, I don't understand your parsing. I halfway understand the Victorian
monster sentence, your parsing not at all. What I said about recursive
sequencing holds for any language. A parallel may be my recent experience
when I witnessed the origin of dancing.

No, you didn't. You didn't exist tens of thousands of years ago.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
A little girl came running, saw
herself coined,

That is genuinely incomprehensible. The closest word might be "cornered," but
that does not fit.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
stumbled but didn't fall, instead she turned her surplus
momentum into kind of a dance - beautiful. ... William
Shakespeare can stumble

What does "stumble into a sentence" mean?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
into a sentence and then turn it into a dance
with the English language. If you quote a Shakespeare sentence, if possible
a difficult one, we might parse it in our different ways. But maybe others
understand you fine, so there is no problem.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
That is genuinely incomprehensible. The closest word might be "cornered," but
that does not fit.
What does "stumble into a sentence" mean?

Yes, cornered is the right word, thanks. I walked along a wall in
a subterranean shopping mall, by my side a young father with a baby stroller,
his older daughter, maybe three years old, running around him, and suddenly
she saw that her way was blocked by me, so she stumbled but didn't fall,
instead she managed to turn her momentum into a beautiful spontaneous dance ...
That was how dancing originated millions of years ago, when apes learned to
walk on two legs, and stumbled, and learned how to prevent themselves from
falling. Some succeeded very well, and became dancers ... When reading Edward
de Vere alias William Shakespeare I often get a feeling that he stumbles into
a sentence I could never finish, but he turns it into a beautiful dance with
the English language.

[Daud Deden]

Franz tells stories.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden
Franz tells stories.

I've encouraged him to pull together his stuff and self-
publish a book. But he doesn't want to.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:24:46 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden
Franz tells stories.

I've encouraged him to pull together his stuff and self-
publish a book. But he doesn't want to.

LuLu.

I honestly think there would be a market for it.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Yes, cornered is the right word, thanks. I walked along a wall in
a subterranean shopping mall, by my side a young father with a baby stroller,
his older daughter, maybe three years old, running around him, and suddenly
she saw that her way was blocked by me, so she stumbled but didn't fall,
instead she managed to turn her momentum into a beautiful spontaneous dance ...
That was how dancing originated millions of years ago, when apes learned to
walk on two legs, and stumbled, and learned how to prevent themselves from
falling. Some succeeded very well, and became dancers ... When reading Edward
de Vere alias William Shakespeare I often get a feeling that he stumbles into
a sentence I could never finish, but he turns it into a beautiful dance with
the English language.

Opening my complete Shakespeare my glance fell on these lines

Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.

King Henry the Fifth, Act 3, beginning of Prologue

The choir speaks of a swift scene that flies on imaginary wings. What can
this mean? Apparently a stage that changes from one to another scence,
from one place to another, swift as a bird on wings, even with the speed
of thought. We have here a mmultiple metaphor combining a stage and a bird
on wings and the mind of the author and the collective mind of the audience.
The choir reminisces of the Ancient Greek theater, while Athene, muse of
Odysseus in Homer, swiftly moves from one place to another in her guises
of owl and sea eagle. Young Edward de Vere (who later used the pseudonym
of William Shakespeare) read Homer in the library of his uncle. We may
assume that he observed sea eagles take off from cliffs and imagined
how that feels. Later on this experience returned in the rhythms of
a prologue

(taking off on the 'a' in imagined)

Thus with imagined wing

(airborne, wings flapping)

our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.

Here the poet not just stumbles into a sentence but jumps of a cliff
into the void, carried by the air, on the wing of genius.

Conventional parsing would hardly do justice to the opening lines of this
prologue. In my opinion the new concept of 'recursive sequencing' fares
better in explaining how the multiple metaphor was arranged in words,
and with utmost economy.

David Kleinecke, would you care to parse the above lines, instead of lifting
off to one more meta-discussion that make sci.lang so very boring?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Opening my complete Shakespeare my glance fell on these lines
Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.
King Henry the Fifth, Act 3, beginning of Prologue
The choir

What "choir"?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
speaks of a swift scene that flies on imaginary wings. What can
this mean? Apparently a stage that changes from one to another scence,
from one place to another, swift as a bird on wings, even with the speed
of thought.

Obviously. Their theater didn't have instantaneous scenery changes; they
had essentially no scenery at all.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
We have here a mmultiple metaphor combining a stage and a bird
on wings and the mind of the author and the collective mind of the audience.
The choir

What "choir"?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
reminisces of the Ancient Greek theater, while Athene, muse of
Odysseus in Homer, swiftly moves from one place to another in her guises
of owl and sea eagle. Young Edw
(taking off on the 'a' in imagined)

What??

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Thus with imagined wing
(airborne, wings flapping)
our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.
Here the poet not just stumbles into a sentence but jumps of a cliff
into the void, carried by the air, on the wing of genius.

Still not the slightest hint of what "stumbles into a sentence" might be
supposed to mean.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Conventional parsing would hardly do justice to the opening lines of this
prologue.

Nonsense. It is a perfectly grammatical sentence.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my opinion the new concept of 'recursive sequencing' fares
better in explaining how the multiple metaphor was arranged in words,
and with utmost economy.

You have no idea what Chomsky was saying. The one thing he has never
wavered on in 60+ years is that semantics IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF
GRAMMAR and is not to be taken into account in analysis.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
David Kleinecke, would you care to parse the above lines, instead of lifting
off to one more meta-discussion that make sci.lang so very boring?

Whoops, there he goes again.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Still not the slightest hint of what "stumbles into a sentence" might be
supposed to mean.

You are a native speaker of English. I am not. When spontaneously writing
an English sentence I often stumble and fall out of the construction, so I
delete my sentence and look for another construction I can bring around.
If I began sentences like de Vere does, I stumbled. He spoke of a writing
style that almost tells his name. It's his lively style that makes him
a great poet, others appear wooden and stiff beside him.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonsense. It is a perfectly grammatical sentence.

Yes, with a logical 'nonsense', a swift scene on imagined wings. When you
watch tv, does the screen fly around on wings? Parsing does not only concern
the words, but also the metaphors used, and here we have a case of a multiple
metaphor. Parsing as I understand it can discern between a l l elements.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
You have no idea what Chomsky was saying. The one thing he has never
wavered on in 60+ years is that semantics IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF
GRAMMAR and is not to be taken into account in analysis.

I did a student of linguistics' Chomsky homework in 1974/75 when developing
my own theory of language. In Chomsky's grammar, swift is an adjective of
scene, our swift scene, but it's an adverb to fly, swiftly flies. No other
grammar can resolve that seeming mistake, only hermeneutics does.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Whoops, there he goes again.

Yes, never ending meta-discussions are the drag of sci.lang.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Yes, cornered is the right word, thanks. I walked along a wall in
a subterranean shopping mall, by my side a young father with a baby stroller,
his older daughter, maybe three years old, running around him, and suddenly
she saw that her way was blocked by me, so she stumbled but didn't fall,
instead she managed to turn her momentum into a beautiful spontaneous dance ...
That was how dancing originated millions of years ago, when apes learned to
walk on two legs, and stumbled, and learned how to prevent themselves from
falling. Some succeeded very well, and became dancers ... When reading Edward
de Vere alias William Shakespeare I often get a feeling that he stumbles into
a sentence I could never finish, but he turns it into a beautiful dance with
the English language.

Opening my complete Shakespeare my glance fell on these lines
Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.
King Henry the Fifth, Act 3, beginning of Prologue
The choir speaks of a swift scene that flies on imaginary wings. What can
this mean? Apparently a stage that changes from one to another scence,
from one place to another, swift as a bird on wings, even with the speed
of thought. We have here a mmultiple metaphor combining a stage and a bird
on wings and the mind of the author and the collective mind of the audience.
The choir reminisces of the Ancient Greek theater, while Athene, muse of
Odysseus in Homer, swiftly moves from one place to another in her guises
of owl and sea eagle. Young Edward de Vere (who later used the pseudonym
of William Shakespeare) read Homer in the library of his uncle. We may
assume that he observed sea eagles take off from cliffs and imagined
how that feels. Later on this experience returned in the rhythms of
a prologue
(taking off on the 'a' in imagined)
Thus with imagined wing
(airborne, wings flapping)
our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.
Here the poet not just stumbles into a sentence but jumps of a cliff
into the void, carried by the air, on the wing of genius.
Conventional parsing would hardly do justice to the opening lines of this
prologue. In my opinion the new concept of 'recursive sequencing' fares
better in explaining how the multiple metaphor was arranged in words,
and with utmost economy.
David Kleinecke, would you care to parse the above lines, instead of lifting
off to one more meta-discussion that make sci.lang so very boring?

Usually I don't do poetry because it often follows its own
bend rather than grammar. But just this once -

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.

Thus [M with O] S flies [M in O]

where M indicates manner adjuncts

imagined wing
motion of O
no less celerity than that of thought

I think "no less celerity than that of thought" would be
"as great celerity as that of thought" in modern English.
Shakespeare's construction being a Middle English
hangover.
o

[DKleinecke]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Yes, cornered is the right word, thanks. I walked along a wall in
a subterranean shopping mall, by my side a young father with a baby stroller,
his older daughter, maybe three years old, running around him, and suddenly
she saw that her way was blocked by me, so she stumbled but didn't fall,
instead she managed to turn her momentum into a beautiful spontaneous dance ...
That was how dancing originated millions of years ago, when apes learned to
walk on two legs, and stumbled, and learned how to prevent themselves from
falling. Some succeeded very well, and became dancers ... When reading Edward
de Vere alias William Shakespeare I often get a feeling that he stumbles into
a sentence I could never finish, but he turns it into a beautiful dance with
the English language.

Opening my complete Shakespeare my glance fell on these lines
Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.
King Henry the Fifth, Act 3, beginning of Prologue
The choir speaks of a swift scene that flies on imaginary wings. What can
this mean? Apparently a stage that changes from one to another scence,
from one place to another, swift as a bird on wings, even with the speed
of thought. We have here a mmultiple metaphor combining a stage and a bird
on wings and the mind of the author and the collective mind of the audience.
The choir reminisces of the Ancient Greek theater, while Athene, muse of
Odysseus in Homer, swiftly moves from one place to another in her guises
of owl and sea eagle. Young Edward de Vere (who later used the pseudonym
of William Shakespeare) read Homer in the library of his uncle. We may
assume that he observed sea eagles take off from cliffs and imagined
how that feels. Later on this experience returned in the rhythms of
a prologue
(taking off on the 'a' in imagined)
Thus with imagined wing
(airborne, wings flapping)
our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.
Here the poet not just stumbles into a sentence but jumps of a cliff
into the void, carried by the air, on the wing of genius.
Conventional parsing would hardly do justice to the opening lines of this
prologue. In my opinion the new concept of 'recursive sequencing' fares
better in explaining how the multiple metaphor was arranged in words,
and with utmost economy.
David Kleinecke, would you care to parse the above lines, instead of lifting
off to one more meta-discussion that make sci.lang so very boring?

Usually I don't do poetry because it often follows its own
bend rather than grammar. But just this once -

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.

Thus [M with O] S flies [M in O]
where M indicates manner adjuncts
imagined wing
motion of O
no less celerity than that of thought
I think "no less celerity than that of thought" would be
"as great celerity as that of thought" in modern English.
Shakespeare's construction being a Middle English
hangover.

OOPS forgot to list

our swift scene

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by DKleinecke
Usually I don't do poetry because it often follows its own
bend rather than grammar. But just this once -

And I like to check ideas on language with great poetry that goes beyond
computer generated language.

Post by DKleinecke
Thus [M with O] S flies [M in O]
where M indicates manner adjuncts
imagined wing
motion of O
no less celerity than that of thought
I think "no less celerity than that of thought" would be
"as great celerity as that of thought" in modern English.
Shakespeare's construction being a Middle English
hangover.
o

There is an attempt at simplifying Shakespeare for young generations.
That will cut off his original breath carried by sensual experience.

As for writing books: A new era has began, scientific online fora allow
dynamic publishing, developing ideas on a daily basis, contrary to the
rather static form of publishing by writing a book at the end of one's
research.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
As for writing books: A new era has began, scientific online fora allow
dynamic publishing, developing ideas on a daily basis, contrary to the
rather static form of publishing by writing a book at the end of one's
research.

It's a shame you don't do any of that in such places.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's a shame you don't do any of that in such places.

What does that mean? Why are you so parsimonious with words? I do research
on a daily basis, I do publish my research, for example in sci.lang where
I carry out my Paleo-linguistic experiment for meanwhile nearly a dozen years,
in that new way of dynamic publishing allowed by the great facility which is
the Usenet. And I focus on topic discussions.

As for 'stumbling into a sentence', I know a radio moderator with a walking
problem (of neurological origin). His moderations are hilarious. He stumbles
into a long sentence, and makes you fear that he will fall any time soon,
but no, he manages to end his very long sentences in what may be called
a triumph of grammar and syntax. Edward de Vere had a walking problem
in his later years, and certainly enjoyed compensating for his impediment
of gait by his unfailing confidence in syntax and grammar worth of a dream
dancer.

Linguistics has not only a deficit regarding semantics but also regarding
physiology.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's a shame you don't do any of that in such places.

What does that mean?

Why did you delete the passage it referred to?

Apparently you requite screen after screen of your own writing (Mr Google covers it up so that
I don't have to look at it) but when I quote a few lines, you delete them?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Why are you so parsimonious with words? I do research

You need to learn what "research" means. It does not mean 'dream' or 'hum' or the other things
you have claimed to do when making up "Magdalenian."

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
on a daily basis, I do publish

You need to learn what "publish" means. It does not mean 'post to a newsgroup'.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
my research, for example in sci.lang where
I carry out my Paleo-linguistic experiment

You need to learn what "experiment" means. (See above on "research.")

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
for meanwhile nearly a dozen years,
in that new way of dynamic publishing allowed by the great facility which is
the Usenet. And I focus on topic discussions.

"The Usenet" is moribund at best.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"The Usenet" is moribund at best.

No, it has not yet reached is full potential. This thread is about parsing.
What did you say about parsing? The word comes from Latin pars 'part' and
means to find the elements of a sentence. Now there are different possibilies
of doing that, depending on grammar and syntax. I was trained for many years
in classical grammar, then got firsthand information on a revolutionary
grammar based on functors and arguments and visualized by budding circles,
then helped a student of linguistics with her Chomsky homework, and recently
I read about the forming of a sentence as 'recursive sequencing' which is
a relevation for me. No grammar center has been found in the human brain,
instead we form a sentence much like we move an arm, one muscle makes a
beginning, another one adds a correction, a third one its own contribution,
and so on. I postulated for a longer time that grammar and syntax are
organized like vision that involves about thirty centers in the brain:
various brain areas play a role. Parsing, then, gets a wider sense: trying
to find all elements. I check my ideas on language with great poetry that
goes beyond computer language, so I quoted a Shakespeare sentence in which
I identified a triple metaphor

a stage representing one scene then another scene

a bird flying from one place and scenery to another one,
allusion to Athene, muse of Homer in the Odyssey, swiftly flying
from one place to another in her guises of an owl (little owl Athena
noctua) and sea eagle

mind of the playwright considering one scene and place then another,
followed by the collective mind of the audience

Now bring these three metaphors together, in one sentence, and make them
easily understandable, even if you don't know about Athene. I can't imagine
a section in my grammar books of old how to manage that, and even to emulate
a sea eagle taking off from a cliff. Remember the beginning of that sentence

Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies

You can read the initial jambs like a school boy

thus WITH i MA gin'd WING

or like a sensible adult, little stress on with, main stress on -MA-,
less again on wing

thus with i MA gin'd wing

and the rhythm goes along with a starting sea eagle, while the rhythm
of the following lines are a soft flapping of the wings.

How can one bring all this together? It is a marvel for me, and testifies
to a web understanding of language production (as opposed to a linear
understanding), various parts of the brain contributing their share,
and all held together by what I call an association space of words.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"The Usenet" is moribund at best.

No, it has not yet reached is full potential.

It may at one time have had a potential, but it has been superseded by any number of other
electronic communication media.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
This thread is about parsing.
What did you say about parsing?

This thread is about David Kleinecke's approach to parsing. It is not a place to spin further
fantasies about Magdalenian, or Shakespeare authorship, or anything else you've brought up.
You have no more right to "post in it" than other people have to "post in" "your" "Magdalenian" thread.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
This thread is about David Kleinecke's approach to parsing. It is not a place to spin further
fantasies about Magdalenian, or Shakespeare authorship, or anything else you've brought up.
You have no more right to "post in it" than other people have to "post in" "your" "Magdalenian" thread.

This thread is about parsing. I speak about parsing. You don't. You can't
stay topic. Which is typical for a kook - kooks on the academic side of the
fence always escape to meta-levels. I don't understand David Kleinecke's
parsing, not at all, but I wish to encourage him and to go on 'tutti'. Maybe
he can define how one of the areas work in helping compose a sentence within
the new concept of recusive sequencing?

[DKleinecke]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Peter T. Daniels
This thread is about David Kleinecke's approach to parsing. It is not a place to spin further
fantasies about Magdalenian, or Shakespeare authorship, or anything else you've brought up.
You have no more right to "post in it" than other people have to "post in" "your" "Magdalenian" thread.

This thread is about parsing. I speak about parsing. You don't. You can't
stay topic. Which is typical for a kook - kooks on the academic side of the
fence always escape to meta-levels. I don't understand David Kleinecke's
parsing, not at all, but I wish to encourage him and to go on 'tutti'. Maybe
he can define how one of the areas work in helping compose a sentence within
the new concept of recusive sequencing?

I am not sanguine about the possibility of ever explaining how
the human mind composes an utterance. What I am interested is
how the utterances are structured. I assume that parsing and
other analytic procedures could help a listener translate back
from an utterance into whatever the mind experiences as "meaning".
But I am not addressing either the speaker or the listener - I
am interested in the utterance that passes between them.

My high level model of speech is that any utterance is based on
a set of learned patterns (idioms) recombined (by a human mind)
into a complex network. That is, pace Chomsky, speech is one
aspect of the well-known human pattern recognition capability.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by DKleinecke
I am not sanguine about the possibility of ever explaining how
the human mind composes an utterance. What I am interested is
how the utterances are structured. I assume that parsing and
other analytic procedures could help a listener translate back
from an utterance into whatever the mind experiences as "meaning".
But I am not addressing either the speaker or the listener - I
am interested in the utterance that passes between them.
My high level model of speech is that any utterance is based on
a set of learned patterns (idioms) recombined (by a human mind)
into a complex network. That is, pace Chomsky, speech is one
aspect of the well-known human pattern recognition capability.

Yesterday I heard of a study on somniloquy, talking in the sleep: grammar
and syntax are perfect, and the utterances are acompagnied by co-verbal
gestures. Human word language evolved from gestures and still is embedded
in gestures, among Norwegians as well as among Italians. You may know that
I propose the hypothesis that word memory is coupled to the physio-phonetical
system. Now it seems that also forming sentences goes along with the motoric
system (which pleasantly confirms how neurologists explain the new concept
of recursive sequencing by the way we move an arm).

As I said, I don't understand your parsing, and I don't know whether others
do. But I encourage you to go on. Maybe you are up to something and can
one day explain how a certain area of the human brain helps compose a sentence
or to orchestrate the various contributions, apparently on a deep unconscious
level, even when we sleep.