Happy about Harry Potter
otheng at kinghenry8.coventry.sch.uk
Mon May 22 08:02:51 EDT 2000
----- Original Message -----
From: Britta Koch <bkoch at rz.uni-osnabrueck.de>
> Well, not exactly. The Computational Linguistics part (which I prefer) is
how to describe a language in rules that a computer could understand. Have
you ever heard of Noam Chomsky?
Yes - my degree is in English Language and Literature - we had to study his
stuff back in the mid-seventies.<g>
> (Actually, making a little grammar for a computer to parse and generate
sentences is quite easy - it's the semantics stuff and the keeping track of
what was said that's hard)
Yup - computers are so literal too!
> Well - I've read a bit of Shakespeare, but I wouldn't call him easy! But
if finally a computer understands Shakespeare's plays and can even comment
on stylistic bits - then I guess I'll be out of work, though it may take
I think there's a fair amount of work to do before then, certainly! It's the
sheer complexity and ambiguity of his language that makes it such a joy.
> (I thought Data from Star Trek was plausible, until he got his "emotion
I felt that was going a bit far, though I did rather like it when he swore
as the ship crashed in "generations".
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj