<div dir="ltr">Forgot to CC the list...<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Guy Emerson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gete2@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">gete2@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>For "It was in January that Browne was hired", is the MRS correct? I was surprised to see both _in_p_temp and loc_nonsp mediating between mofy(Jan) and _hire_v_1. Is there a reason to have both? It would seem more consistent to have just _in_p_temp, which takes the intrinsic variable of _hire_v_1 as its ARG1. This would match the MRS for "Brown was hired in January". Adding the it-cleft seems to have the side effect of adding loc_nonsp.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Hmm, good point (this is relevant, for those following along: <a href="http://moin.delph-in.net/ErgSemantics/ImplicitLocatives" target="_blank">http://moin.delph-in.ne<wbr>t/ErgSemantics/ImplicitLocativ<wbr>es</a>). I think this version of the ERG is simply unable to link up the ARG1 of _in_p_temp to the index of _hire_v_1. Notice that the ARG1 of _in_p_temp is underspecified, so the loc_nonsp is required, then, to establish the relationship. Other analyses that do not have loc_nonsp don't actually get us a _in_p_temp that hooks up with _hire_v_1; rather, the "in January" is modifying the "was" (i.e., not an it-cleft analysis). <span style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">Also, if I remove the loc_nonsp and change the ARG1 of _in_p_temp to select the ARG0 of _hire_v_1, the MRS no longer generates.</span> I'm not sure if the original selected analysis is an underspecification of some valid ambiguity or a technical compromise to deal with limitations in our rules of composition.</div><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>The reason this is relevant is that, without the loc_nonsp, there would be no need to look at TENSE.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I'm not following here. What would change in the graph to make _hire_v_1 stand out as the representative EP?</div><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="m_5283905499216366708m_-4433971587958679417m_5732599838301898266gmail-h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2018-07-24 23:18 GMT+01:00 Michael Wayne Goodman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Answering one of my own questions; see below...<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>If anyone has read this far, I have a question: both the ERG and Jacy have a [ TENSE untensed ] property, but is this a more widespread convention? I'm reluctant to rely on it because I want to avoid parametrizing my semantic conversion functions for grammar-specific values.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I surveyed some grammars, and noted that the following use [ TENSE untensed ]: ERG, Jacy, gg, SRG</div><div><br></div><div>The following do not: NorSource, Semitic Grammar (HeGram), BURGER, HaG, KRG, INDRA, Zhong</div><div><br></div><div>Also note:</div><div>* HaG has [ TAM untensed ] exported in the VPM, but not [ TENSE untensed ]</div><div>* Zhong does not use the TENSE property at all</div><div><br></div><div>So I think it's safe to say that it's *not* a widespread convention among medium-sized or larger grammars.<br></div><div><br></div><div>One alternative to this specific tense property is the pos field of predicates, which is part of MRS and not grammar-defined. The idea is that predicates of certain pos values are more likely to modify others, such as verbs modifying nouns ("sleeping dog"), adpositionals modifying verbs ("ran quickly", "ran in the park"), degree modifiers on adpositionals ("ran very quickly", "the cat was very much in the bag"), etc. Abstract predicates (which do not formally have a pos) would come last, I suppose. But I'm not certain that such a gradation is not language-specific, and there are probably counter-examples.</div></div></div></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div> </blockquote></span></div><br></div></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div>