Talk:Attempto Controlled English

Backwards example?
ACE construction rules require that each noun be introduced by a determiner (a, every, no, some, at least 5, ...). ACE interpretation rules decide that (1) is interpreted as universally quantified, while (2) is interpreted as existentially quantified. Sentences like "Women are human" do not follow ACE syntax and are consequently not valid.

Isn't (1) existential, while (2) universal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:1:2D62:D1AA:A0F3:B54 (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: Misunderstood these as referring to words in parenthesis. I'll add clarification.

Uncomfortable with examples
When copy-editing this article, I was not satisfied with the way examples are used. They are key to the article, but do not flow well. I have brought consistency to the flow by added colon's at the end of lead-in phrases. It would be ungainly and highly repetitious to be saying "for example" every time. But maybe a more thorough rewrite could make the reading smoother. Any ideas? Matthew C. Clarke 13:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced section?
Regarding the "unreferenced section" template in the section "ACE in a nutshell" - isn't it possible just to add a reference to Fuchs, Kaljurand, and Kuhn 2010 (currently #2 in the "References" section) and remove that template? StormWillLaugh (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete rule?
Our text reads, "ACE construction rules require that each noun be introduced by a determiner." But we go on to give allegedly acceptable ACE sentences that sound natural in regular English but that seem to contradict the quoted rule, to wit sentences with proper nouns. Kdammers (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)