<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <style type="text/css" style="display:none;"></style> </head> <body dir="ltr"> <div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr"> Hi Mike, 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.  Dan <div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> <hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1"> <div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr">From: developers-bounces@emmtee.net <developers-bounces@emmtee.net> on behalf of Michael Wayne Goodman <goodman.m.w@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 10:57 AM To: developers Subject: [developers] SEM-I question: properties on 'i' variables <div> </div> </div> <div class="BodyFragment"> <div class="PlainText">Hi all, What does it mean when variable properties are specified on 'i'? The following example is taken from <a href="http://moin.delph-in.net/SemiRfc" id="LPlnk477215" class="OWAAutoLink" previewremoved="true"> http://moin.delph-in.net/SemiRfc</a>, which comes from the ERG:      _a+little_q : ARG0 i { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY h. In the "variables" section of the ERG's SEM-I, no properties are defined on 'i', and 'NUM' is only on 'x':      u.      i < u.      p < u.      h < p.      e      x number, PT pt. So why is 'i' the value of 'ARG0' on the predicate synopsis above? Why not 'x'? When I looked through through all the .smi files of the ERG (trunk), 'i' was the only underspecified variable type that took properties, and every instance specified 'x' properties such as NUM or IND (not 'e' properties like TENSE or SF). Perhaps something in the grammar could be more tightly constrained so the SEM-I generation code doesn't enumerate apparent redundancies such as the following?      def_explicit_q : ARG0 x { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY h.      def_implicit_q : ARG0 i { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY h. Or am I mistaken in thinking these are erroneous? -mwg </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>