[developers] generation bug in Agree - "are not permitted to look you."
Stephan Oepen
oe at ifi.uio.no
Sat Nov 30 23:42:59 CET 2013
> Perhaps we should not have two "_look_v_1_rel"'s with different
> argument signatures in the first place? I though that this was
> officially discouraged, ...
well, how exactly would you define the ‘argument signature’
of a predicate? i would think we need to allow ourselves a
notion of unexpressed arguments, e.g. in the many usages
of, say, ‘bet’; or ‘exaggerate’, for that matter. even ARG1s
of verbs can be unexpressed: in passives, nominalizations,
fragment utterances.
once we have unexpressed arguments, i would think there
is no formal difference between [ ..., ARGn u, ... ] vs. just no
mention of that ARGn role, or?
cheers, oe
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++ Universitetet i Oslo (IFI); Boks 1080 Blindern; 0316 Oslo; (+47) 2284
0125
+++ --- oe at ifi.uio.no; stephan at oepen.net; http://www.emmtee.net/oe/ ---
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++ Universitetet i Oslo (IFI); Boks 1080 Blindern; 0316 Oslo; (+47) 2284
0125
+++ --- oe at ifi.uio.no; stephan at oepen.net; http://www.emmtee.net/oe/ ---
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20131130/6c353f0b/attachment.html>
More information about the developers
mailing list