Hmmm. I tried "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."
Didn't get it right.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal... )
Did better on "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
Didn't get it right.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal... )
Did better on "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
The real problem is that the parser comes so swiftly to wrong conclusion and cheerfully presents it as a valid result.
It would look a lot better if it simply reported "error: cannot parse that". (Better yet, with reasons: "I cannot parse that because I get stuck on this specific ambiguity and it's just too much for me.").
Also, what about the possibility of multiple results? Language is ambiguous. If something has two parses, it's wrong to assert just one.
This thing has made no consideration whatsoever that even a single instance of "buffalo" in the sentence might conceivably be a verb, which flies in the face of almost any noun in English being verbable.
It's almost purely syntactic reasoning. Searching these spaces of possibilities is something which, you would think, a "natural language parser" ought to be doing to earn its name.
Nobody actually knows what it means "to buffalo" something; it is not necessary to know. People solve the parse in spite of knowing that there is nothing to understand in the sentence.