Phlebotinum
Words
When I parse an English sentence, by default I look up words using WordNet 3.1, and then try to determine the correct part of speech for each word based on both syntax and semantics.
A coffee is a kind of beverage.
WordNet knows about synonyms as well:
> Polly is a lumberjack.
OK.
> Is Polly a logger?
Yes.
For unknown uncapitalized words, I usually assume them to be common nouns, which may cause confusion:
> A coffee's size may be small, medium, or ginormous.
I am unable to understand the belief that a coffee's size may be small, medium, or ginormous.
To correct this, you can teach me new words:
> "ginormous" is an adjective.
OK.
> A coffee's size may be small, medium, or ginormous.
OK.
You can also extend words I already know with additional usages. For example, from WordNet, I know the word “rad” as a noun (a unit of absorbed ionizing radiation). You can extend it to be usable as an adjective as well:
> "rad" may be an adjective.
OK.
> A surfer or a miner is a kind of person.
OK.
> A surfer's accent may be rad, tubular, or gnarly.
OK.
> A rad is a kind of unit.
OK.
> If a miner absorbs a rad, the miner dies.
OK.
Or you can tell me to forget about pre-existing usages:
> "rad" must be an adjective or an adverb.
OK.
> A rad is a kind of unit.
Sorry, I cannot understand what you said.
Parts of Speech
These are the English parts of speech you can specify when you define a word:
- noun (assumed singular+common)
- common noun (assumed singular)
- proper noun (assumed singular)
- plural noun (assumed common)
- plural proper noun
- verb
- adjective
- adverb
- pronoun (default nominative)
- nominative pronoun
- objective pronoun
- dative pronoun
- reflexive pronoun
- possessive pronoun (FIXME: discriminate her vs hers)
- conjunction
- preposition
Compound Words
I know some compound words (with or without spaces or hyphens) from WordNet:
> A big top is a kind of tent.
OK.
But others I need to be told about:
> A big bad is a kind of villain.
I'm not sure how to interpret that.
So:
> "big bad" may be a noun.
OK.
> A big bad is a kind of villain.
OK.
Proper Nouns
When you try to use normal words as names, I may get confused:
> Grumpy is a dwarf.
Sorry, I cannot understand what you said.
You can help me understand what you’re trying to do:
> "Grumpy" is a proper noun.
OK.
> Grumpy is a dwarf.
OK.
You may also need to do this in cases where you use a name that I haven’t heard of before.
Of course, if you tell me that something may be a proper noun, then I will preserve its original meaning and try to disambiguate based on context:
> "Grumpy" may be a proper noun.
OK.
> Dwarves, kings, and queens are kinds of person.
OK.
> A person's enemy must be a person.
OK.
> There is a queen.
OK.
> A person's mood may be grumpy or happy.
OK.
> Grumpy is a dwarf.
OK.
> The queen's mood is grumpy.
OK.
> What is the queen's mood?
Grumpy.
> Is the queen a dwarf?
No.
> The queen's enemy is Grumpy.
OK.
> Is the queen's enemy a dwarf?
Yes.
> There is a king.
OK.
> The king has an enemy.
OK.
> The king's enemy is grumpy.
OK.
> Is the king's enemy a dwarf?
No.
As you can see above, this may get a bit confusing. If you’d prefer to completely take over the word, just tell me that it must be a proper noun (or just is a proper noun), and I will forget about its existing senses:
> "Grumpy" must be a proper noun.
OK.
> Grumpy is a dwarf.
OK.
> A person may be grumpy or happy.
Sorry, I cannot understand what you said.
You can also use multi-word names (as long as they are all capitalized), and then I’ll do my best to understand full or partial references to them:
> Margaret Atwood is a writer.
OK.
> Is Atwood a writer?
Yes.
// FIXME support titles such as “Ethelred the Unready”
When names also overlap with common words, I may get confused, in which case you can tell me which usages to support:
> Clever Hans is a horse.
I am unable to understand the belief that clever Hans is a horse.
> "Clever Hans" may be a proper noun.
OK.
> Clever Hans is a horse.
OK.
> Is Hans a horse?
Yes.
Hyphenated Words
When I see a hyphenated word which I don’t recognize, I look at the part after the last hyphen to see if I can recognize that word by itself. If I can, then for determining part of speech and word sense, I treat the entire hyphenated word the same as the suffix. For example:
> Pigs and truffles are kinds of objects.
OK.
> After a pig scarfles a truffle, the pig digests the truffle.
Sorry, I cannot understand what you said.
> After a pig scarfle-eats a truffle, the pig digests the truffle.
OK.
I was unable to recognize the unknown word “scarfle” as a verb. But I was able to understand “scarfle-eat” as functioning similarly to “eat”. This isn’t terribly helpful for making up new words to be used in conversation. (For that, you should explicitly tell me the parts of speech of your neologisms.) But it is useful when you are deriving your own private language, particularly for use in defining conditional rules:
> A person may be alert or complacent.
OK.
> A person may be calm or puffy.
OK.
> An irritable-person is a kind of person.
OK.
> When a person pokes another person, the latter poke-reacts.
OK.
> When a person pokes an irritable-person, the irritable-person angry-reacts.
OK.
> When a person poke-reacts, the person becomes alert.
OK.
> When a person angry-reacts, the person becomes puffy.
OK.
> Brutus is a person.
OK.
> Julius is an irritable-person.
OK.
> Julius and Brutus are calm.
OK.
> Julius pokes Brutus.
OK.
> Is Brutus puffy?
No.
> Brutus pokes Julius.
OK.
> Is Julius puffy?
Yes.
In this way, you can derive new concepts without hijacking the normal meanings of words such as “person” and “react”.