9
edits
What is Toaq? (for linguists): Difference between revisions
→Writing a parser: Fix typo
The&System (talk | contribs) m (pó súq -> súqbo) |
(→Writing a parser: Fix typo) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
The community is working on a [[parser]], called [[Kuna]], which | The community is working on a [[parser]], called [[Kuna]], which translates Toaq sentences into their logical forms. To do so, we must thoroughly develop the syntax and semantics of the language. In the process, the developers have taken an amateur interest in natural language semantics. A human-oriented language whose syntax is small and unambiguous turns out to be an attractive testbed for ''implementing'' semantics research. | ||
For Toaq to describe everyday situations, and for us to describe Toaq, we have to pick a theory of "speech acts", a theory of "tense", a theory of "plurality/distributivity", et cetera. How many ideas from linguistics research must we combine to make a "complete" language? Do the ideas play nicely together in practice? If learning grammar means absorbing strict rules about scope and quantification, can humans learn to reliably produce correct sentences? The parser's development influences our usage, and vice versa. Step by step, we arrive at a better picture of how a language can be both human and computer-parseable. | For Toaq to describe everyday situations, and for us to describe Toaq, we have to pick a theory of "speech acts", a theory of "tense", a theory of "plurality/distributivity", et cetera. How many ideas from linguistics research must we combine to make a "complete" language? Do the ideas play nicely together in practice? If learning grammar means absorbing strict rules about scope and quantification, can humans learn to reliably produce correct sentences? The parser's development influences our usage, and vice versa. Step by step, we arrive at a better picture of how a language can be both human and computer-parseable. | ||