<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Thank you, Dan!<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Note that it's not just quantifiers. I also see in the gold
profiles instances of pron, part_of, generic_entity, etc., with an
'i' variable for ARG0 with 'x' properties. And grepping 'i {' over
the etc/*.smi files yields a lot more, and not always on ARG0:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> _tomorrow_a_1 : ARG0 i, ARG1 i { NUM sg }.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>In case it's relevant, I'm looking at the ERG trunk SEM-I, so
there is no core.smi file anymore, but it looks like the problem
is the same. I'm sorry if these bugs delay the release!<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/12/18 1:10 PM, Dan Flickinger
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MWHPR02MB26084E653B5525D8FF5174C6BAC10@MWHPR02MB2608.namprd02.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Hi Mike,</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">I think having
properties appear on an `i' variable should be considered a
bug in the grammar. Looking now at the trunk gold profiles, I
find two kinds of examples where the relevant lexical type
failed to constrain a quantifier's ARG0 to be an `x', and I
have now fixed those errors. I also see that in the file
erg/etc/core.smi, the ARG0 for quantifier predicates is
uniformly presented as an `i' (with properties), but these
should also be `x'. I'll see if I can get this correction
into the 2018 release, which I aim to freeze and announce this
week.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"> Dan</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:developers-bounces@emmtee.net">developers-bounces@emmtee.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:developers-bounces@emmtee.net"><developers-bounces@emmtee.net></a> on behalf of Michael
Wayne Goodman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:goodman.m.w@gmail.com"><goodman.m.w@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 12, 2018 10:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> developers<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [developers] SEM-I question: properties on
'i' variables</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi all,<br>
<br>
What does it mean when variable properties are
specified on 'i'? The <br>
following example is taken from <a
href="http://moin.delph-in.net/SemiRfc"
id="LPlnk477215" class="OWAAutoLink"
previewremoved="true" moz-do-not-send="true">
http://moin.delph-in.net/SemiRfc</a>, which <br>
comes from the ERG:<br>
<br>
_a+little_q : ARG0 i { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY h.<br>
<br>
In the "variables" section of the ERG's SEM-I, no
properties are defined <br>
on 'i', and 'NUM' is only on 'x':<br>
<br>
u.<br>
i < u.<br>
p < u.<br>
h < p.<br>
e < i : PERF bool, PROGR bool, MOOD bool,
TENSE tense, SF sf.<br>
x < i & p : DIV bool, IND bool, GEND
gender, PERS person, NUM <br>
number, PT pt.<br>
<br>
So why is 'i' the value of 'ARG0' on the predicate
synopsis above? Why <br>
not 'x'?<br>
<br>
When I looked through through all the .smi files of
the ERG (trunk), 'i' <br>
was the only underspecified variable type that took
properties, and <br>
every instance specified 'x' properties such as NUM or
IND (not 'e' <br>
properties like TENSE or SF). Perhaps something in the
grammar could be <br>
more tightly constrained so the SEM-I generation code
doesn't enumerate <br>
apparent redundancies such as the following?<br>
<br>
def_explicit_q : ARG0 x { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY
h.<br>
def_implicit_q : ARG0 i { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY
h.<br>
<br>
Or am I mistaken in thinking these are erroneous?<br>
<br>
-mwg<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>