Re^4: Have you netted a Perl Monk or Perl Pretender in 5 minutes or less?

[Anonymous Monk]

in reply to Re^3: Have you netted a Perl Monk or Perl Pretender in 5 minutes or less?
in thread Have you netted a Perl Monk or Perl Pretender in 5 minutes or less?

Also, I think we can all agree that more persons are in proximity to pigs than shark. Sharks are rarely anywhere near pigs. I'm sorry, I had to say something. :)

I get the joke, but I don't get the grammar rules ... OTOH Parse a sentence says

++++Time                                          0.00 seconds (98.93 
+total)
Found 8 linkages (8 with no P.P. violations)
  Linkage 1, cost vector = (UNUSED=0 DIS=0 AND=0 LEN=16)

    +--------------------------------Xp-------------------------------
++
    |                      +--------------MVt-------------+           
+|
    +------Wd------+       +--------MVp--------+          |           
+|
    |       +-Dmcm-+--Spx--+-Pp-+--Jp--+       +-Jp-+     +--Opc-+    
+|
    |       |      |       |    |      |       |    |     |      |    
+|
LEFT-WALL more persons.n are.v in proximity.n to pigs.n than sharks.n 
+. 

Constituent tree:

(S (NP more persons)
   (VP are
       (PP in
           (NP proximity))
       (PP to
           (NP pigs))
       (PP than
           (NP sharks)))
   .)

IIUC (If I Understand Correctly), it is the people (and not the sharks) whose proximity is relative

Compare to
more persons are in proximity to pigs than proximity to sharks
more persons are in proximity to pigs than are sharks

[Your Mother]

:P Do you have any analysis of the seven other possible parse trees the site can generate for that sentence? Frankly, it's mostly beyond me. Isn't English fun!