
You can type anything here to visualize its grammatical structure - KHANG1
http://nn.bb/1Hy/
======
sssilver
Have fun with a long sentence:

"Considering how common illness is, how tremendous the spiritual change that
it brings, how astonishing, when the lights of health go down, the
undiscovered countries that are then disclosed, what wastes and deserts of the
soul a slight attack of influenza brings to view, what precipices and lawns
sprinkled with bright flowers a little rise of temperature reveals, what
ancient and obdurate oaks are uprooted in us by the act of sickness, how we go
down into the pit of death and feel the water of annihilation close above our
heads and wake thinking to find ourselves in the presence of the angels and
harpers when we have a tooth out and come to the surface in the dentist’s arm-
chair and confuse his “Rinse the Mouth —- rinse the mouth” with the greeting
of the Deity stooping from the floor of Heaven to welcome us – when we think
of this, as we are frequently forced to think of it, it becomes strange indeed
that illness has not taken its place with love and battle and jealousy among
the prime themes of literature."

------
MatthaeusHarris
This confuses it utterly:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo)

~~~
dalke
Did it claim it was going to diagram it correctly? :)

My test was to see if "Have you ever seen a rich man fish?" is parsed the same
as "Have you ever seen a red fish?" It is, which is incorrect.

The ambiguity in the structure has to be resolved by knowing there is neither
a "rich man fish" or a "man fish"; although there can be a "clown fish" or a
"pilot fish".

It also incorrectly parses "When shall we three meet again?" Compare its
diagram to "When shall we all meet again?" In the latter, "all" is described
as an "appositional modifier" to "we", but in the former, it is a "number
modifier" to "meet".

------
steaminghacker
"the red cup and saucer on the table" parses as the (red cup) on the table and
saucer. but both are red and both are on the table, if the default meaning of
the phrase would be understood.

also, i like the idea of the composer, but the rephrasing only works on small
phrases (that are easy), when actually bigger ones would be the real value
here.

WIP i guess?

------
nulbyte
If by anything you mean certain things.

"[Imperative] [subject or object]" is interpreted as "[Noun] [noun]," which
makes no sense.

