<div dir="ltr">Dear Ann, Dear all,<br><br>I wanted to follow up on a comment Ann made in the recent thread<br>on predicate naming in MRS. I've changed the subject line because<br>I think this is orthogonal to the main discussion in the previous thread.<br><br>Ann's comment:<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Ann Copestake <<a href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>><br>Date: Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:54 PM<br>Subject: Re: [developers] predicate naming in MRS<br>To: <a href="mailto:developers@delph-in.net">developers@delph-in.net</a><br><br>[...]<br><br>The case issue also relates to treating the predicates as having a three-part structure (lexeme/pos/sense) throughout the codebase (with an option to allow simpler names for toy grammars). This is something we have been discussing for a long time ... I believe that this is the right way to look at predicate symbols in *MRS - i.e., as an additional annotation on lexemes. There would be advantages to doing this in the grammar - it allows for alternations that change sense to be implemented in lexical rules. If we do this, then the lexeme part should reflect the conventional spelling, which might include case variation (and, naturally, non-ASCII characters).<br><br>[...]<br><br>I was surprised by this remark, because lexical rules changing predicate<div>symbols (if that's what you mean, Ann) strikes me as non-monotonic.</div><div>Can you clarify?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Emily</div><div><br><br><br>--<br>Emily M. Bender<br>Professor, Department of Linguistics<br>Check out CLMS on facebook! <a href="http://www.facebook.com/uwclma">http://www.facebook.com/uwclma</a></div></div>