She was quite popular, but she felt lonely. It seems contradictory. But in fact, it was because she didn't fully frank her true self.

The embodiment of religious culture. This situation is considered a sin.

It turned out to be pregnant. As I read, I kept thinking, what culture is so conservative that as long as you have sex, you have to get married? I finally understand now.

At first, I felt that she was very kind and thoughtful of others, for fear that her existence would cause trouble to others. Looking back after reading the rest paragraphs, I feel that this personality may be one of the reasons for her loneliness.

It feels like she has a mask. She is always afraid to reveal her true feelings and thoughts in front of others, even with good friends. She is very lonely inside.

So, even though she said she didn't want, she still had such a longing in her heart. She just refused to admit that in her words.

A very euphemistic way to say that she bowed her head a lot. And nose and chin echo her appearance description.

It felt as if she wanted things to develop further and as if she had already made up her mind to marry off her daughter so she didn't intervene at the very beginning.

These things feel very gloomy and hopeless. It feels like everything is a little tattered.

It seems to imply that this girl's behavior is not very acceptable in the traditional society.

So here again a cryptic expression is used, rather than a direct point. But in this story, the specific events were pointed out in the later paragraphs, whcih is slightly different from the previous story (maybe related to the setting of the event itself and the role of this event).

She still remembered the names of her childhood playmates. It indicates that those memories were very great for her.

Contradictory but true. Although her father had always been violent in the past, she still remembered the good things when she was going to leave.

A very simple calm sentence, not even an exclamatory sentence. There doesn't seem to be much literal emotion in the words. But in fact, there is a strong emotion underlying this kind of calm sentence. I regard this a feature of this story and I really like it.

At first glance, these few lines of dialogue seem to have little substantive meaning. But perhaps it was the meaninglessness of the conversation and the other things 'I saw' at the bazaar that ruined the boy's imagination.

These two different uses of green stems is a manifestation of the differences between boys and girls of this age.

This collection of stories has a stronger religious atmosphere. Settings such as prays and priests often appear.

Very euphemistic. Not only was the word ’die' not used, it wasn't even referred to by any other word (like 'go'). On the one hand it may be a kind of euphemism; on the other it may also be due to a hint of sadness.

So the narrator ‘I' in this story is a boy. And the sisters in the title actually refer to those female characters in the boy's upbringing environment? Is there an implied gender issue?

This word ’dream' also appears several times, as if it is one of the clue words of this story. Why does Old Mr. Neave keep feeling like he's in a dream? Is it because the real life is too tiring and he hoped to experience a beautiful and not fatigued life in a dream, or does it imply that he is too old and may fall asleep forever (an indication of death)?

A very strong sense of loneliness. I found that when talking about Old Mr. Neave, there seemed to be a strong subjective emotional component. A bit like his stream of consciousness.

This story seems to like to repeat some words. Similar in the last paragraph saying Harold was handsome. Maybe it's a way of emphasizing.

I'm a little confused if this is a cultural difference or what. I think the word 'father' seems to have a certain sense of distance. In contrast, if they call 'dad', it seems more cordial. I'm not sure if this is me thinking according to my cultural habit or if it does imply distance between family members here.

I'm wondering if the man said "Pardon" because he could not hear what Leila said due to the noise at the ball, or is it because Leila's words surprised him? Maybe it's all the best for Leila, but it's all normal for someone who goes to the ball a lot.

Very strong contrast. Meg felt like a seasoned, familiar veteran. She also knew these girls. And Leila, as a little girl who participated for the first time, looked very immature.

The description vividly captures Leila's shyness the first time she goes to the ball. And her actions (opening and shutting her fan) reflect her nervousness. There are many interesting verbs in this story.

These questions are not fully written. I think it's a good representation of her complicated and confused feelings at the moment. Maybe she doesn't even know how to ask her inner questions.

There are a lot of tone particles in this story, especially the word 'oh', which seems to reflect the personality of the speaker to a certain extent. She should be a person who is emotionally exposed rather than calm and mature.

This is a very long sentence. I found this story uses short sentences in dialogue but long sentences in description. Maybe we can calculate the length of the sentences according to such different context.

I notice that the verbs in this story are very fine (see also: stammer in the following paragraph, gasp in some previous paragraphs, etc.). They are all very fine verbs, instead of words like say. Maybe we can further analyze the verbs in this story.

Actually I don't really understand why the throat is like a flower??

I haven't seen such kind of metaphor before. The comparison of the human body to food is quite interesting. On the one hand, it is very consistent with the situation at the time, and on the other hand, it also implies that the boy's head is very thin and his complexion is very dark. This metaphor is quite vivid.

The punctuation in this novel is really interesting. What is particularly striking is that the author uses a lot of dashes, and the use of dashes has different effects. Here, for example, seems to be using a dash as a connection.

I have the impression that semicolons are not often used in English. In English, usually a sentence ends with a period, unlike in Chinese where commas are used to connect various sentences. But here, semicolons are used. Is this because these actions are coherent? Or is it the author's personal style?

Here the word I seems to refer to the dead? It should be what Laura imagined he was saying. At first I thought it is a sudden switch of Laura's first person, but after reading it carefully, I think Laura should have read what he might be saying from the expression on his face.

These three adjectives are very interesting. They seem to contradict each other, and they seem to have a transition. Bright usually carries a positive meaning, while terrible is strongly negative. The process of going from bright to terrible may reflect the process of psychological change.

I think the animals here may have a certain symbolic meaning, and they are also showing each child's different characteristics and personal images. For example, among these animals, the bull is relatively brave and aggressive, so it might be the leader among them. But I'm not quite sure if the selection of these animals is culturally specific.

There are more characters and dialogues in this story. It reminds me of the conversational attribution we discussed earlier. But there were only two people at the time, and it might be possible to infer who said each sentence by calculation, but here, there are more people who build the dialogue together. Although most sentences are followed by a speaker's name, can the computer infer these few sentences without a speaker's name?

Does this imply that the author took some inspiration from Robinson Crusoe and transferred it when writing this story? I do not know exactly, but in any case, the metaphorical meaning of Robinson Crusoe is first mentioned at the beginning, and again mentioned at the end of the novel. This is a good thread that ties the whole novel together, making it coherent.

I'm wondering why the author wrote this part of the narrative in letters. With letters, Franklin can be referred to as "you" in the second person. But If it is used in the third person, and everything is expressed in the name of the person, it may be well understood, too. So what is the major difference? Maybe in the form of letters, it can be less formal and get closer to the readers?

I think the use of italics here is also a way to express shock because this is a person's name and the initials are already capitalized. Not only italics is used further to express emotions, but also the paragraph is separate and at the end of the narrative. I think this may be a writing style of Mr. Blake (since in the third narrative, he also used capitalization to show his shock). And it also reflects that Mr. Blake is a person with rich and strong emotions.

In Mr. Blake's own narration, Rachel is always referred to as Rachel. But in the conversation here, she is referred to as Miss Verinder. Is this a manifestation of etiquette, or is it rewritten by the narrator here? (taken into consideration that in the fourth narration, she is always referred as Miss Verinder)

In the previous several paragraphs before this pronoun, Blake's name does not appear. Insteda, it is the third-person pronoun that is always used to refer to him. Although we can understand it because Blake is the major character in this part of story, can the computer infers it accurately? If the computer infers it by considering the semantic coherence or the syntactic trees in maintainance, it may consume a lot of computational cost.

Franklin's writing style is somewhat romantic, and he likes to describe landscapes, especially positive ones like the sky and the sun. In addition, there are few negative descriptions of others in his narrative. It can be felt that Franklin is a very positive and friendly person.

Another kind of love that deeply moved me. More notably, Rachel also kept this secret for the next year. Although she didn't want to see Franklin again before, she still favored him in her holding the truth.

I like this letter very much. This letter not only greatly promotes the progress of the story and answers many previous questions, but also reveals the very rich inner world of Rosanna, a person who still held absolute love even after a lot of painful experiences. She is also very self-respecting and has an independent inner world. I love her letter (her writing) and the richness of emotion she brought out. In addition, I am deeply moved by her love that she would rather die with the secret to protect her lover (Franklin).

Here the first letters of the words 'Myself' and 'Thief' are capitalized. I think this expresses the great shock of Franklin after he discovered this truth.

This is in contrast to the writing style of Miss Clack, who used to say that she got precise information from her diary. Here Franklin relied on his own memory and admited that some memories might be vague. It is also possible that he wrote this sentence in order to skip the less important story (the night at Hotherstone's Farm).

The traveler is not actually involved in the story of Moonstone and is not a member of Rachel's family, but he has a clear grasp of the Indian story, with clear logic and timeline, and he even did some tests about the theory of clairvoyance. This may be due to his characteristics, because he is a person who is curious about unknown events (also known from his like to go to unexplored places). And there is also some other possibilities (e.g. because he is familiar with the story of Indians, if the missing of the moonstone is related to him, he is more likely to shirk responsibility).

As a solicitor, and as a participant of some 'secret' events, Mr.Bruff did solve many of the remaining mysteries and moved the story forward a great deal. His narrative style has very distinctive features as a solicitor, that is, he first summarized the outline of what he was going to say, and then expanded it in detail. So my first impression of this man is that he is organized and logical.

I'm a little bit at a loss for understanding this complex emotion. Was it because in Miss Clack's heart, the love for Rachel prevailed? Or because she wanted to maintain a positive image of herself when she wrote this, and she could not say she was annoyed? Or was it because they never saw each other again, so she calmed down about it? Personally, I think these all have some contribution, because the emotional connection between people is very complex. The relationship between these two young ladies was very good, so even there was a dispute, Miss Clack probably still hoped that Rachel would be well in the future. But I am also wondering, what do these personal emotional factors have to do with the Moonstone's story?

The narrator does not emphasize the role of his diary as often as at the beginning. There is a possibility that when she wrote the first chapter, she hoped to make readers believe in herself and think that her description was true and credible, so she often mentioned the diary, which was a somewhat deliberate mention.

The word 'completeness' is very interesting. Why is such a behavior be described as a kind of 'completeness' instead of words like 'in order' or 'politeness'? I guess the 'completeness' is one personality the the Christian emphasize. So since religion is so emphasized, does religion have any indication in this novel? This is what I'm going to rethink after reading the whole novel.

This is a very tragic ending, and Rosanna's own life experience is also very tragic, which makes me sigh. Maybe when the narrator said that she likes to sit on the edge of quicksand and think in the previous chapter, a foreshadowing has alreadly been laid that she would die here. But why is this her grave? To end her life here, without even leaving a trace, was perhaps a way for her to preserve her self-esteem?

Very realistic and very thought-provoking. An originally harmonious and beautiful family became suspicious of each other because of the loss of a very valuable diamond. It made me think about interpersonal trust and the good and evil of human nature. At the same time, I was also wondering if it is possible to use computational text analysis methods to describe the dynamic changes of the family's atmosphere.

I'm wondering, what is this word that referring to here? There are two ways to understand it. 1) It refers to what they discussed earlier, which is that Indians will get the moonstone in any form, and there might be dangerous things happening tonight. 2) Five minutes before talking about this, the narrator happened to see a very apt sentence in the Robinson Crusoe. Here 'that' might refer to this coincidence, to indicate that Robinson Crusoe is a prophecy. I personally prefer the second understanding, because this sentence wants to express the narrator's belief in Robinson Crusoe. And combined with the previous mentions of this book, I suspect that this book can prompt the development of the following plot (but this idea still needs evidence). Also I am wondering, can computational text analysis identify the meaning of this pronoun (that)? Because this pronoun is beyond the scope of the syntactic tree. Its implied meaning needs to be understood from the context, and is quite connotative.

This evidently reflects the egalitarianism and respect for people, regardless of the status of the other person, in British culture. One person does not agree to search the wardrobe, then he/she will not be forced to be searched against his/her will. One does not agree, then no search will be conducted to anyone, due to the equality. This is a very significant national/cultural feature. I wondered, are there any other segments that embody the characteristics of national culture in this book? And can we analyze this kind of cultural characteristics with computational text analysis?

There is a clear conflict here that reminds me of the topic of superstitious discussed yesterday. For Indians, they have a strong belief in the moonstone, and for them anything they do is a sacrifice (even life can be sacrificed). However, to the foreign British (such as the narrator), they are just murdering thiefs. The narrator does not understand this belief of the Indians. It is actually a conflict beween cultural beliefs.

It's an interesting question that to what extent the legendary story about the moonstone is true. In this section, the two men actually discussed a lot of issues (e.g. what motivated the Colonel's action and what they should do next). However, only this question has not been further discussed, and there is no evidence to support any side. I think it, on the one side, keeps the romance of the story going and keeps readers curious. On the other hand, it implies that this question may be the focus of the following chapter (since it cannot be addressed in a few paragraphs), which may describe some adverse events due to the moonstone. But anyway, these are all subjective guesses, so we still need to read with skepticism (of whether there was a conspiracy or not).

This is the first mention of three Indians in the text since the legend in the prologue. "Three" exactly matches the three priests of the guard in the prologue story, which may indicate that someone in the family has already held the moonstone. However, the behaviors of these three Indian are very strange. The specific significance of these behaviors needs further reading. And we still don't know why these Indians appear around the house (is it a coincidence?). I wonder if an Q&A NLP model can answer these questions.

In addition to quoting this sentence here, the author also frequently mentioned Robinson Crusoe in the later paragraphs of this chapter. Why did he do so and what did it mean? If he just wanted to emphasize this quoted sentence, to emphasize that 'I' just began to record this story at a loss, it feels like a waste of words (I mean he didn't need to mention it through this whole chapter). Does it allude to the possibility that anyone in this story had acted without thinking about the cost? Or is it, as several students annotated, just a way of saying that the narrative of this book is similar to Robinson Crusoe? Perhaps computational text analysis can compare the relationship between the quote here and the following text based on the vertical reading of the full text.