how detect english subject and predicate in a sentence

[Ted Zlatanov]

Charlton> Consider: "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."

RLS> Keep in mind, the second sentence has *three* interesting interpretations:

RLS> (1) There are a kind of flies, called "fruit flies" that are attracted
RLS> to bananas.

RLS> (2) Fruit has aerodynamics that are similar to bananas.

RLS> (3) You are instructed to attack some flies by throwing fruit at them.
RLS> Do this as a banana might do it.

RLS> Granted, they have various levels of relative believability, but this
RLS> is not something you can simply regex.

I have a fourth interpretation, but the margin is too small to write it
out here.

Ted

 

[Tim Greer]

I'd find that odd. Since fruit is a well-known adjective for the noun
flies, I'd wonder if the quote marks were intended to convey irony. I
think it may only be the previous sentence that conditioned you to
interpret the second sentence in that particular way. It is often
presented as a garden path sentence -- in that it deliberately
misleads.

I read it that way originally, because I assumed it was an example meant
to show that if it was oddly worded, it would be that much more
difficult to determine the subject. Intentional or not, the proof is
there.

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

SB> This is an example which points out how difficult the task
SB> is. "Fruit" is NOT the topic of the sentence. "flies"
SB> is. "Fruit" tells us what type of flies like bananas.

Actually, the sentence can be read *correctly* in two incompatible ways.
You can read "Fruit flies" as the subject, and "like a banana" as the
predicate, or "Fruit" as the subject, and "flies like a banana" as the
predicate. Both readings are correct.

Only syntactically. I am not an expert in the aerodynamic properties of
fruit, but I would imagine that a banana with its elongated, curved form
flies rather differently than an apple or a coconut. So the
generalization is false or at least questionable. And if it was intended
as a generalization it would probably have been worded "*all* fruit
flies like a banana." On the other hand, it is common knowledge that
fruit flies do like bananas. So the interpretation ((fruit) (flies) (like
a banana)) is rather unlikely (and I'm rather astonished that Jack made
that mistake, especially given the context).

Structurally, it's identical to the former sentence in the statement:
"Time flies like an arrow." But because there is no such thing as a
"time fly," there's only one reading that makes sense.

Well, there could be. It doesn't even have to be an insect. Maybe
there's a rock band "The Time Flies". And maybe they like Italian
motorcycle parts ...

In other words, you can't determine what the subject of the sentence is
without knowledge of the semantic content.

Right. It's knowledge about the real world (including common figures of
speech) which makes the ((fruit flies) (like) (a banana)) a much more
likely interpretation than ((fruit) (flies) (like a banana)), and which
makes ((time) (flies) (like an arrow)) much more likely than ((time
flies) (like) (an arrow)).

hp

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

Charlton> Consider: "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." [...]

Keep in mind, the second sentence has *three* interesting interpretations: [...]
(3) You are instructed to attack some flies by throwing fruit at them.
Do this as a banana might do it.

Merriam Webster's doesn't know about this meaning of the verb "fruit".
Instead is lists "to bear fruit". And as anyone who has left an overripe
banana lying around, it does seem to "fruit flies" (people used to
believe that low life like insects can develop directly from inanimate
matter). So "fruit flies like a banana!" might be some especially nasty
curse. Eew!

hp

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

PJH> Only syntactically.

You're trying to make a distinction between the reading of the sentence
conveying information (in which sense both readings are correct) and the
reading of the sentence conveying factually true information.

This is a level removed from correctly parsing the sentence.

For instance, given the sentence "Tokyo is the capital of
Massachusetts," the correct reading of the sentence is factually wrong.
This does not make it grammatically incorrect or even grammatically
ambiguous.

Charlton

 

[Dr.Ruud]

Charlton Wilbur schreef:

Peter J Holzer:

You're trying to make a distinction between the reading of the
sentence conveying information (in which sense both readings are
correct) and the reading of the sentence conveying factually true
information.

This is a level removed from correctly parsing the sentence.

There exist parsers that use other factors as well, such as probability.

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

PJH> Only syntactically.

You're trying to make a distinction between the reading of the sentence
conveying information (in which sense both readings are correct) and the
reading of the sentence conveying factually true information.

This is a level removed from correctly parsing the sentence.

No, it is necessary for correctly parsing the sentence. Syntactically
both sentences can be parsed both ways:

1 ((time flies) (like) (an arrow))
2 ((fruit flies) (like) (a banana))
3 ((time) (flies) (like an arrow))
4 ((fruit) (flies) (like a banana))

All four parse trees are syntactically correct and all four convey
information. It is only semantics which makes us prefer 3 over 1 and 2
over 4.

For instance, given the sentence "Tokyo is the capital of
Massachusetts," the correct reading of the sentence is factually wrong.
This does not make it grammatically incorrect or even grammatically
ambiguous.

As you say, this sentence isn't grammatically ambiguous. There is only
one possible subject (Tokyo) one possible predicate (is) and one
possible object (the capital of Massachusetts). You don't have to
decide between different parse trees using semantics.

hp

 

[Ilya Zakharevich]

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
Peter J. Holzer

As you say, this sentence isn't grammatically ambiguous. There is only
one possible subject (Tokyo) one possible predicate (is) and one
possible object (the capital of Massachusetts).

??? `Tokio' is an adjective for subject `is' (plural of `i' denoting
a sound or a letter); the rest is clarification (do not remember the
correct grammatical category).

Who knocks at my doors?
We the rulers of universe.

Ilya

P.S. In the `rulers' example there is a grammatical correlation of
plurality of `we' and `rulers' but obviously it is not always
present. (Can't give an example right now, though...)

 

[Jack]

Only syntactically. I am not an expert in the aerodynamic properties of
fruit, but I would imagine that a banana with its elongated, curved form
flies rather differently than an apple or a coconut. So the
generalization is false or at least questionable. And if it was intended
as a generalization it would probably have been worded "*all* fruit
flies like a banana." On the other hand, it is common knowledge that
fruit flies do like bananas. So the interpretation ((fruit) (flies) (like
a banana)) is rather unlikely (and I'm rather astonished that Jack made
that mistake, especially given the context).


Well, there could be. It doesn't even have to be an insect. Maybe
there's a rock band "The Time Flies". And maybe they like Italian
motorcycle parts ...


Right. It's knowledge about the real world (including common figures of
speech) which makes the ((fruit flies) (like) (a banana)) a much more
likely interpretation than ((fruit) (flies) (like a banana)), and which
makes ((time) (flies) (like an arrow)) much more likely than ((time
flies) (like) (an arrow)).

        hp

Hi all,

sounds good and I believe we are focusing on a few exceptions / corner
cases. I would make an educated guess that for 80-90% of sentences it
should be possible to extract the subject and predicate...that being
said, is there a module that does this and if not what are the rules.
Are we still stuck in this semantic conundrum for the majority case?

Thanks,
Jack