On 10/01/2008, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll be a lot more interested when people start creating NLP systems > > that are syntactically and semantically processing statements *about* > > words, sentences and other linguistic structures and adding syntactic > > and semantic rules based on those sentences.
Note the new emphasis ;-) You example didn't have statements *about* words, but new rules were inferred from word usage. > Depending on exactly what you mean by this, it's not a very far-off > thing, and there probably are systems that do this in various ways. What I mean by it, is systems that can learn from lessons like the following http://www.primaryresources.co.uk/english/PC_prefix2.htm I could easily whip up something very narrow which didn't do too poorly for prefixes (involving regular expressions transforming the words). But it would be horribly brittle and specific only to prefixes and would "know" what prefixes were before hand. And your, "I be," example made me think of pirates rather than ebonics :). It is also not what I am looking for, because it relies on the system looking for regularities, rather than being explicitly told about them. The benefits of being able to be told there are regularities mean that you do not always have to be looking out for them, saving processing time and memory for other more important tasks. Will ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=84215783-ff2e58
