Slashdot Mirror
Linguistics Meets Linux: A Review of Morphix-NLP
Emre Sevinc writes "Zhang Le, a Chinese scientist working on Natural Language Processing has decided to pack the most important language analysis and processing applications into a single bootable CD: Morphix-NLP. More than 640 MB of NLP specific software is included and there's still a lot of place on the CD which uses a compressed filesystem for bringing us the best of both worlds."
All this language processing packed onto a single CD yet
Trolling is a art,
I was in the process of downloading this already. Damn you slashdot!
Neat.
--dw
This means that GCC will have to be expanded to be expanded to support all human languages as well as programming languages...
Does my computer do my Spanish homework for me?
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Maxis will have The Sims actually talking, instead of looking "special".
Does anyone remember Forum 2000 (link does not actually work)? It's got some neat technology behind it. And the conversations between surfers and the SOMADs was hilarious. When I first saw the site, I thought it was actual people imitating the different characters. Does anyone know what happened to the site and why it no longer functions? I miss it.
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
But can it translate Perl code?
If you want to play the typical stereotype... please at least get it right.
:)
It's the Japanese who has problems pronouncing L's... and the Chinese have problems pronouncing R's.
The Westerners on the other hand, can pronounce almost anything, but will never ever get facts right
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
It just converts it to Chinese.
This page has some reasons.
Well, the reason that they have trouble pronouncing them is that L and R are the same letter in their alphabet.
And since when can Westerners pronounce anything?
Last time I checked they couldn't pronounce a single Russian word half-way correct.
Ia oundfa aa anguagela ita antca igurefa outa!
Actually, this software seems like it would totally useless for that purpose. The software was developed and has a bunch of heuristics and domain knowledge put in by experts in english or the relevant language. Without similar expertise, the software can't be adapted to a new language. The software isn't a universal translator.
So your hypothetical anthropologists or translators would still need to spend time and learn the language in question.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
I was JUST googling for stuff about grammar and sentence diagramming on computers when I saw this story! Anyways, hopefully this will encourage people trying to make AI (AI capable of passing the Turing test) to use true grammatical parsing/analyzing (a non-open-source unsuccessful attempt is http://www.brainhat.com/). Also, perhaps this will encourage the development of an open-source grammar checker for OpenOffice.org or KOffice.
Amazing, isn't it? An article is posted about the latest Microsoft hole or the latest RIAA/MPAA engagement and the slashdot rabble section will harp on about how wonderful OSS is. Then an article extolling the benefits of OSS comes along that, more than likely, adds to the potential for global adoption of OSS. The result; the rabble section heaps mind-numbing stereotpyes upon the article killing useful discussion of the subject.
Any chance people could be vaguely consistent and get behind OSS for reasons other than elitism.
no states have laws like that, this summer Texas ditched theres, they were the last to do so
stiff sodomy laws? theres a joke in there somewhere...
Thank you very much for posting the 'controlled english' comment - I had never heard of it before. As it turns out, it was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
depends on what part of china you're from about the L/R thing actually
Here is where you can go to download the .iso image . .torrent on Slashdot.
Try not to kill their site. If someone has downloaded it, it would be nice of them to post a
This article is about linguistics, and he said "go read Chomsky", so I went and read Chomsky's bibliography. What I'm about to say applies to all modern philosophers and mathematicians:
God damn, them are some fancy-schmancy sounding titles! Does anybody ever get the feeling sometimes that maybe things are simpler than our smartest people currently make them out to be? If you can't talk as simple as I'm talking now, you ain't really "nailed it."
The reason I think this is true: back when all mathematicians only had Roman Numerals, the process for explaining how to multiple 3-digit numbers was extremely opaque, and it was nearly impossible to describe how to do long division. Now we can teach 3rd/4th graders how to do it before they watch "Barney".
I saw some links about all the math they never teach anymore (compound arithmatic, like pounds shillings pence comes to mind). I think something similar will be the case in 1000 years with everything Chomsky and any arbitrary math guy says: they just haven't thought about how to say it simply yet. Life just *ain't* that complicated (if you have the right way to think.)
I always thought it was because of so much perl code being obfuscated purposefully. After all, if you can figure out what some of that does without frying your brain from confusion, translating mandarin chinese is no big deal.
read my blog
musings on politics and technol
I was surprised to read that GATE was not listed in the package list. It's the best piece of software to tie together the descrete components that were included. Another complaint is that are a lot of so-so implimentations of very good algorithms. (#define NOT_FLAMEBAIT = 1) I suppose that you have to turn to corporate software to get the really robust implimentations and to free software when you want the cutting edge.
Can the idea of producing a modular-on-a-cd OS be patented?
Because if it can be, we have to secure it with something before a corporation patents it!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I wonder whether Forum 2010 is run by the same folks. I doubt it since Forum 2000 and 3000 were both Carnegie Mellon projects, and forum2010.org is registered to someone in St. Louis.
That's me, actually. You can't expect hundreds slashdot geeks suddenly slamming my site and having me not notice. ];-)
Forum 2010 had, in fact, nothing to do with the great fellows at Forum2k/3k aside from inspiration. And, just to end the rumors, I built the F2.01k matrix and all my own SOMADs as a senior project for my Comp Sci degree at Fontbonne University.
Now, I'm late for a date! Please don't destroy the matrix while I'm gone!
--
I remember when I was first let loose on a Unix system, and discovered tools like 'lex' and 'yacc' for lexical analysis and parsing. I was amazed that advanced language processing was so well supported - it was a short while before I discovered that they weren't for natural language processing :)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
I would say that westeners can not pronounce simple Chinese.
English is the only language I know but I studied Mandarin chinese for a few years.
There are all sorts of things in there that we have a lot of trouble pronouncing.
Can your karma go above being Excellent?
any of these natural language tools
can be helpful for spam filtering?
Cheers, Joel
Neat! Did you write the QSA code yourself or adapt the code written by the original CMU researchers?
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
I have been using the base Morphix system for a Bengali l10n Live CD project (which was mentioned at slashdot a few days back). I am really amazed by its capabilities - if you want to have a LiveCD of your own - this is probably the best starting point.
For documentation, you may want to have a look at the Morphix Wiki.
Pronounce syllables, dumbass.
Unless pronouncing "l" and "r" constitutes speaking English?
Anyway, since when does being, "imaginative," make a langauge good?
White boy monkeys?
Squint.
Wow. That's the first slashborging ("All Slashdotters should have the same opinions! Be consistent, dammit!") post I've seen in a long time.
Even though they're stupid as hell, I was beginning to miss them.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
While NLP has many benefits, it can also freeze certain linguistic elements that should be removed or amended.
As a simple example, take spell checking. When the computer can remember the spelling for every word and fix it automatically, who is going to worry about spelling simplification or reform? Yet changing to a standardized phonetic spelling would probably help people in the long run, if only by allowing children time to actually *write* rather than spending time in rote memorization and spelling bees.
The same holds true for grammar. Program existing grammatical rules -- in all of their illogical complexity -- into computers, and you reduce the incentive to simplify and improve such rules. If we had continued to use Roman numerals until the advent of handheld calculators, would there be as much incentive for using Arabic numerals? And yet, without zero and the simplicity of the latter, mathematics would be far poorer for it today. And if computers can soon parse logographic languages like Chinese, will it prevent simplification or even conversion to a (arguably better) phonetic alphabet?
NLP is important, granted, and will help more than it hurts, but it is important to realize that it has some potential drawbacks.
I saw someone working on something like parsing english as a programming language
I thought English was already a programming language, designed for querying PICK databases.
But seriously, don't patents try to describe a process in a limited subset of the English language?
Can to! Ying tong iddle I po
OK, I get that it's a Chinese scientist working on this, but it's about language. Should the Slashdot article really have been written in Chlinglish?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You do know this is /., right?
philcrissman.com.
Take my wife! Please!
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side!
The reason I think this is true: back when all mathematicians only had Roman Numerals, the process for explaining how to multiple 3-digit numbers was extremely opaque, and it was nearly impossible to describe how to do long division. Now we can teach 3rd/4th graders how to do it before they watch "Barney".
....
That's also why none of the good stuff was made by the Romans - it was the Greeks, then the Arabs that had good numerals, made the discoveries, before the knowledge of a proper number system finally returned to Europe in more recent centuries. The roman numerals were more like the Dark Ages of mathematics.
I think something similar will be the case in 1000 years with everything Chomsky and any arbitrary math guy says: they just haven't thought about how to say it simply yet. Life just *ain't* that complicated (if you have the right way to think.)
Life might not, but math certainly can. E.g. x^n + y^n = z^n is not true for positive integers x,y,z and n > 2. Proof: 250 pages long or so alone. The final article to put it all together is 100+ pages alone. And you won't understand shit until you've read a couple thousand pages of basic number theory. If you think that's ever going to be something you can slap up on the blackboard in an hour, you're wrong.
For all that's been said and done, I think most "simplifying" moves have been made. I've done quite a bit of higher math, and I certainly haven't found any "easy" way to explain it to others. Sure, I can *show* you how phasors rotating in the complex plane can be used to derive the output of a AC circuit of resistors, capacitances and inductances, but noone will understand why.
Most people will never get past the "apples" math. 3, 1/2, sqr(2), all operations on them can be understood by thinking of it in terms of physical objects. Now try make people "understand" e.g. complex numbers and operations. Hell most people have trouble understanding a trivial induction proof.
Now say I got a standard induction proof:
f(1) is true.
if f(n) is true, f(n+1) is true.
And this proves it for n infinitely large.
Then, people believe it's some "infinity magic". But in reality it's simply that for every finite number there is a conventional, finite proof.
Let's say I want to prove it for f(325266235235352):
f(1) is true.
Since f(1) is true, f(2) must be true.
Since f(2) is true, f(3) must be true.
Since f(325266235235352 - 1) is true, f(325266235235352) is true.
But people don't understand that. Which tells me they will never understand 90% of higher math, because it won't get much simpler than that...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I would think the Chinese have problems pronouncing 'v' rather than 'r'. There is no 'v' sound in Mandarin, but plenty of 'r'. Such as in 'ri' (day/sun), 'ru guo' (if), etc.
No, I specifically remember Maxwell Smart's old Chinese enemy, the Craw!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Linguists have always been geeky. Don't forget that Larry Wall is a linguist first.
The only computer class I ever took was in 1983 called "Computer tools for natural language analysis". It was an introductory Unix course. We learned grep, awk, sed as well as tools like vi, Mail, and rogue. And a tiny little bit of C. But since then I've taught C at the graduate level.
Linguistics is all about the reprensentation and manipulation of information. But instead of it being about languages we design for particular purposes, it is about the language system that we use naturally.
Suppose you have a few thousand languages that you know were written with the same tools (like lex and yacc, but not lex and yacc), but you have no access to those tools. Suppose you are trying to figure out what those tools are from examining the languages (not the compilers) that have been specified using those tools. That is what theoretical linguistics is trying to do. We know that the specification of English and the specification of Dyirbal and every other human language out there are somehow "written" with the same tools. It's pretty need stuff.
Linguists were early adopters of TeX, have had a Unix affinity for a while, and as people who are interested in how information is internally represented and manipulated, like reading the source.
I remember once nagging the sys admins to always make sure that there is a man page for anything added to /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin.
The next day, they asked me to look at the manpage for something to see if it met with my approval. The DESCRIPTION was the C source. I was happy to say that it did, indeed, meet with my approval.
At one point, a well known professor (Geoffrey Pullum) had written a little essay for a newsletter on the "grammer of Unix" using linguistic style analyses of the shell. Naturally several of us feigned outrage at his confusion of "Unix" with the shell. Another linguist (Bill Poser), went so far as to write a shell which was verb (command) final, and post-positional. That is instead of saying
/bin/sh chsh
cat foo bar > bang
you would say
foo bar bang > cat
That is, the arguments preceed the command, and the redirect symbols go after the filename they redirect to or from. Now for various reasons, I had root access on a machine that Pullum used. So I changed his shell to this command final one. He actually caught on remarkably quickly. And after a quick
he was ready to concede the point.
For me, there is no surprise that linguists, and particularly computational linguists, are OSS enthusiasts. But that is enough of my random musings for now.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Westerners typically can't differentiate between different tones in tonal languages.
there are something like 80 phones of linguistic merit capable of being produced by humans. english has like 40, i think.
and any linguist will tell you, it's impossible to pronounce something wrong...linguistics is a descriptive, positive science as opposed to a normative, prescriptive science. NO ONE speaks wrong, unless they think they do, i.e. a speech error
i didn't try very hard in ling 101, it was so easy....
is figure out which one of us is going to download this and torrent it. all the rest of us will stop downloading immediately.
sure, thatll work
but seriously, my wife is very interested in linguistics(spanish major, almost a russian minor, some esl) and im curious as to how easy this will be to use for someone with no linux experience
tofu is made of little baby seals
I totally read it as neural-linguistic programming. Or..maybe it IS really neural-linguistic programming, you listen to their cd for a while and you end up in one of these stories.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
I guess this means we're just a step closer to have Star Trek/Farscape style universal translator implants on our body. Can't wait until I can talk to a Klingon or a Vulcan... maybe even Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs! ;)
So what are you waiting for... linguists are waiting for the geeks to make data gathering easier, to give us more grist for the microscope.
And besides - the more language data we get, the more complex mindlike matter we can incorporate into games and sims... so hop to it, people. You've got that girlfriend or nemesis to animate, har.
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
i want to know
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
Of course, we are aware that "grammer" is a spelling error and not a grammar error, so there won't be 27 comments about that...
It's amazing how you can have so much functionality and interesting products surface out of the free linux kernel but still not dominate the market. Reminds me of this joke :
if operating systems ran the airplanes
Air DOS Everybody pushes the airplane until it glides, then they jump on and let the plane coast until it hits the ground again. Then they push again, jump on again, and so on...
Mac Airlines All the stewards, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look and act exactly the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are gently but firmly told that you don't need to know, don't want to know, and everything will be done for you without your ever having to know, so just shut up.
Windows Air The terminal is pretty and colorful, with friendly stewards, easy baggage check and boarding, and a smooth take-off. After about 10 minutes in the air, the plane explodes with no warning whatsoever.
Windows NT Air Just like Windows Air, but costs more, uses much bigger planes and takes out all the other aircraft within a 40-mile radius when it explodes.
Linux Air Disgruntled programmers decide to start their own airline. They build the planes, ticket counters, and pave the runways themselves. They charge a small fee to cover the cost of printing the ticket, but you can also download and print the ticket yourself. When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very comfortable, the plane leaves and arrives on time without a single problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is, "You had to do WHAT with the seat?"
I'm not at all interested by airy analysis about sentence structure -- I like historical linguistics. Every wonder about a word like "go"? Why is it's preterit "went"? Well, the preterit used to be "eode" which actually comes from the same stem from which Latin ire comes. And from ire, we get only the French future stem ir- (as in J'irai -- I will go). This is important and all, but why are linguists so interested in this computer-related stuff, and not in the rich and varied history of our language, as well as those of many others?
And if computers can soon parse logographic languages like Chinese, will it prevent simplification or even conversion to a (arguably better) phonetic alphabet?
Why is this a "potential drawback"? written chinese is a beautiful, expressive language and a phonetic alphabet (there are several around) results in a severe watering down of the meaning attached to any particular word. Having said this, 90% of educated mainland chinese can read romanized pinyin anyway, but few would choose to write with it unless there was a specific need.
(1) Insert the knob behind the lever.
In (1) you could perhaps use a handfull of terms instead of "knob" -- controlled language enforces only certain licensed terms, this increasing overall consistency (same terms for same thing). This can be checked automatically once a positive list (or typically a hierarchy called "thesaurus") has been setup.
(2) He saw the girl on the hill with the telescope.
The second/third case are lexical and structural ambiguity: we want to avoid problems like with (2), where "saw" could be past of "to see" or have another (more morbid) interpretation. Even worse, it is unclear whether the girl is on the hill, carrying the telescope or whether "he" is spying on the girl with the telescope. I leave it as an exercise to the reader how many combinations (possible interpretations) there are in a sentence like (2) [Hint: Which verb? Who is where? Who carries the telescope?].
In a Controlled Language scenario e.g. ACE, after some initial investments in thesaurus construction, thesaurus lookup and simple parsing techniques are used to report problematic passages to a human editor, who has to correct it manually.
This is not programming in natural language. Typically only large companies can afford the initial investment.
Where are the "All Your Base" trolls when it's actually relevant?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
And a Linux lover too.
Computers haven't stopped grammar evolving. I find some sentences without contractions ungrammatical, but a computer won't mark them as such, but nor will it mark the contracted form ungrammatical. Also, in my dialect, there takes ''s', regardless of whether it's plural or singular ('there's a million people here'). A relatively recent innovation (I didn't even realise it was an innovation till it was brought to my attention though).
o:sVu, Di @dv{:ntidZ @v @ kn=sist@nt sp{liN @z D{t D@ pkj1}j{r@d@iz @v mai dailekt n@id@n bOD@ j1} (XSAMPA. Less oddly, we might have:
orso, dhe advowntidj ov a consistant spalling iz dhat dhe pekuyaredyz ov my dylect need'n bodha you)
Look out!
can be found here.
It's either much harder or much easier to read, depending on your point of view.
This Like That - fun with words!
Let's not forget about Douglas Hofstadter either. He has written some books I think every geek should read: The Mind's I, and Godel Escher Bach. If you can get through those, you should try Metamagical Themas. As melon-scratchers go, it's a honey-doodle.
Funny story, that I am sure nobody cares about: My wife (then girlfriend) and I were both in a bookstore looking for books, and were in different parts of the store. She was getting her Masters in French Linquistics. We met up to check out, and she was excited about the book she found. I told her I found a really cool one too, Metamagical Themas. I showed her the cool stuff in this book, and she agreed it was interesting. Then she showed me some of the interesting stuff from the book she picked: Le Ton Beau De Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language. We then realized that they were written by the same guy! Hofstadter is really awesome, and ties the whole geek/linguistics thing pretty well.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Since both are languages, can, for example, these tools be used for translation of software requirements to code ?
Back when I was an undergrad, I was taking Principles of Compiler Design in one building on campus and Principles of Linguistics in another. However, the division seemed purely arbitrary.
In Compiler Design we were learning all about lexical analysis, parse trees, and context free grammars. In Linguistics we were learning all about...lexical analysis, parse trees, and context free grammars. It was really interesting taking the two classes back-to-back, and observing the similarities (and differences).
Don't even get me started on how Compiler Design (and Linguistics) put me leaps and bounds ahead of the curve when I took Modern English Grammar.
--
bachiatari na torisetsu o yome!
As both a partly self-labeled linguistic anthropologist and a cultural anthropologist, I would like to respectfully qualify the parent's statements on the state of the field. This really isn't meant as a flame but I do enjoy discussions on the difficult relationship between linguistics and anthropology.
First, while anthropology seems to emphasize linguistics to a much lesser degree than in Boas' era, a large number of anthropologists do work on language, in one way or another. Granted, the groundwork of deciphering unknown languages isn't really part of the discipline anymore, but thorough research projects on how language and language varieties work in social and cultural settings are prominent in the work of many anthropologists, from Michael Silverstein to Alessandro Duranti. Whether or not you call this type of language science "linguistics" is a matter of choice. The fact remains that language still plays a prominent role in contemporary anthropology.
The matter of whether or not "post-modernism" killed cultural anthropology is also open to debate. While I understand the claim and did feel some frustrations caused by "post-modern" anthropology, I think that the ultimate impact is that of enhancing anthropology. True, most cultural anthropologists have stopped writing monographs about "The Xs," but "post-modern" self-criticism is now being replaced by hybrid research activities combining theory and practice. Interestingly enough, language has a large impact on much of this work, at least in the form of meaningful exchanges. Again, maybe not "linguistic" in the strictest sense, but surely enough to warrant language training.
Alexandre http://enkerli.wordpress.com/
Hey, that was one of my favorite tools too, back in the 80's. Can't think of anything better for finding the Amulet of Yendor.
You're likely correct. I've heard that often, the first person to prove a theory in mathematics does it in a very complex way. Later, other mathematicians figure out how to simplify it. It's a little like cleaning up someone else's code.
spreadsheet.eng:
---
Write a spreadsheet that's Excel-compatible.
---
gcc -o spreadsheet spreadsheet.eng
Yes, exactly. I spent a year in Vietnam and had the hardest time understanding the tonal differences.
:)
What I hear as one word will actually have 6 tonal differences. Very sing-songy. Westerners imply emotion in their tones. There are hidden meanings in our tones. All of this actually confused the locals too.
And yes, western language does have more sounds than eastern langugaes. At the university there, I had a side-by-side chart of the sounds in each language. English had maybe two or three times as many sounds as Vietnamese. Their language is straightforward, albeit "foreign".
Another things English has over a lot of languages, "flavor" or "color". We can be very colorful in how we say things. We can twist something with a hint of sarcasm or irony or humor. We can throws words together like "asshat" or "prarrie dogging" and we "get it". They won't. And other simple things where we personify items. Nobody ever got used to me items. It would rain, I would look up and say "stupid rain" and people would ask me "how can the rain be stupid?"
It's becuase when you are born, you're capable of pronouncing anything. As you grow up listening to the sounds of those around you talking, your brain 'tunes in' to sounds you perceive as relevant and hear often. All other sounds are treated as background noise. So -- Americans raised on English not only have trouble speaking chinese, but they have trouble hearing it correctly. Look at the Nguni languages of certain African tribes. They searialize syllables consisting of clicks and ticks of the tongue that we would at best interpret as salivary overhead. This is why westerners, not just americans, have trouble with eastern languages. Tones, pauses, pitch, all of these things are involved in every language, far beyond the simple translation of text into phonetic looking symbols. The phonetics we're familiar with limit us to certain languages. You'd write out 'exactly' as EX-AKT-LEE or something like that, but how would you write out the ticking clicking clopping sounds of the Nguni? You wouldn't know where to begin. You have no context for them. Hell, even most people can't properly hear the pronunciation of Yiddish or Hebrew, and that's more closesly related to western languages than the oriental suite. Face it, it's the upbrining of people speaking oriental tongues that causes the R L confusion -- not their intelligence or so called lack therof as the pundits seem to assume.
Speak for yourself.
(2) He saw the girl on the hill with the telescope.
where "saw" could be past of "to see" or have another (more morbid) interpretation.
No, it couldn't. I saw, you saw, but he saws. Proper verb conjugation won't allow your alternate interpretation.
v 4.02.0
$YodaBSD: src/release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/yodanotes/9steppro cess.sgml,v 4.02.0 2003/12/05 14:15:45 tsarkon Exp $
All in a days work with a Yoda figurine rammed up your ass.
I HAVE A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS!
GO LINUX!!
Tux is the result after trimming Yoda's ears off so that Lunix people don't rip themselves a new
I saw someone working on something like parsing english as a programming language
.... it would take far too long to give examples, I'd better stop right here!
I thought English was already a programming language, designed for querying PICK databases.
But seriously, don't patents try to describe a process in a limited subset of the English language?
Seriously, no, patents don't have any linguistic axe to grind. The function of a patent specification is to tell the world, in language that the ordinary specialist in the field will be able to understand, that here is a new and useful thing, this is what its essentials are, and then here is the inventor telling how to make and use it. Many peculiarities of patent drafting are learned as precautionary reactions to some one or other of the pitfalls that await to trap the unwary, especially when it later turns out that amendment is needed: the patent falls into the pit when the desired subject of the amendment is not found in the original document
-wb-
Does anybody know of any working mirrors for this ISO?
Thanks in advance.
http://snorg.org/morphix-nlp-1.1.iso.torrent