> Regarding “expressing subject (or agent) with verb conjugation”: this should just translate straightforwardly to an implied subject. Yes you can express any

> Regarding “expressing subject (or agent) with verb conjugation”: this should just translate straightforwardly to an implied subject. Yes you can express any set as a tree (in fact as many possible trees) but if different possible tree representations of that set are equally as valid - then the tree structure isn't really there, it's just an arbitrary interpretation imposed on the data. If a sentence A B C can be reordered to any permutation, and some parts can be dropped without changing the meaning - then what lets you decide that the proper representation is this tree: . / \ A . / \ B C and not this: . / \ . C / \ A B And if any of these is as valid as any other - why insist that the underlying structure is even a tree? Another hint that these kinds of interpretations are wrong is that most succesfull NLP software typically uses word vectors which ignore the tree-like structure and just treats the data as unordered set :) To understand a sentence it is more important to know all the words in it, than to know how they are nested. Even for analytical languages like English :)