On 16/11/11 16:39, sebb wrote: > On 16 November 2011 14:32, Thilo Goetz <twgo...@gmx.de> wrote: >> On 15/11/11 03:22, Benson Margulies wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:20 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 15 November 2011 02:12, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> That page is very misleading, and there was a long discussion of this >>>>> topic elsewhere. >>>>> >>>>> Look at the example just above the requirement: >>>>> >>>>> "The Apache Xerces XML parsing library is easily configurable and >>>>> compliant with current standards" >>>>> >>>>> Yes, in some sense, Xerces is an adjective there, but really what the >>>>> senator is trying to say is to construct a particular noun phrase. >>>> >>>> AIUI, trademarks need to be used as if they are adjectives. >>>> >>>> For example: >>>> >>>> The Hoover vacuum cleaner is versatile >>>> NOT >>>> The Hoover is a versatile vacuum cleaner >>> >>> I think I've just discovered that I'm too tired to type. I agree: >>> that's an adjective. However, it's really very hard to make sense of >>> the requirement without the example, either what you just sent or >>> what's on the page. >>> >> >> See subject line. >> >> Feel free to completely ignore this, but the linguist in me >> couldn't let this go ;-). You can verify this by trying to >> stick another adjective between Hoover and the rest. Just >> like "car" in "car door" is not an adjective (compare "green >> car door" vs. "car green door"), Hoover is not an adjective >> in "Hoover vacuum cleaner" (and neither is vacuum). > > Not sure possible word order is relevant/conclusive.
It's called a distributional test and it's at least a pretty good indication. > >> This might explain why people in a project like OpenNLP are >> confused by that sentence on the trademarks page. > > The point is that the mark must be *used as* an adjective. A noun is a noun is a noun. > > I think this was previously called an adjectival noun, it now seems to > be called "noun adjunct": > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct > > What do you suggest the trademarks page should say in order to make it > clearer? I don't know, I admit I don't really understand what it is supposed to mean. The page seems to contradict itself just a few lines below where it says: the Apache Foo project releases a software product called Apache Foo If I understand this right, "Apache Foo" must not be used to denote a specific thing (in this case the product), and it must always be made clear what object we're talking about. I.e., the Apache Foo product, released by the Apache Foo project and voted on by the Apache Foo PMC. Or something like that. > >> --Thilo >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
