<div dir="ltr">Finally caught up on this thread so far --- I just wanted to interject that<div>my proposal concretely is that definiteness correspond to a variable</div><div>property (this is inspired by Borthen & Haugereid 2005) and that demonstratives</div><div>involve additional (adjective-like) EPs.</div><div><br></div><div>Emily</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Stephan Oepen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:oe@ifi.uio.no" target="_blank">oe@ifi.uio.no</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> I could imagine a runtime option to the generator saying something along the lines of "please apply the following patches to the SEM-I before starting," as opposed to requiring the changes to be compiled into an ACE ERG image to be used only for JaEn, for instance.<br> <br> </span>yes, i had come to think along similar lines last night already :-).<br> adding an ‘include’ statement to one of the files of the grammar still<br> felt a tad more intrusive than would seem optimal (to a purist, at<br> least), even more so if one were to imagine that a user might want to<br> experiment with multiple such custom hierarchies in parallel ...<br> <br> oe<br> </blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Emily M. Bender<br>Professor and Acting Chair</div><div dir="ltr">Department of Linguistics<br>Check out CLMS on facebook! <a href="http://www.facebook.com/uwclma" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/uwclma</a><br></div></div></div></div> </div>