[erg] _certain_q_rel

[Emily M. Bender]

Hi Paul,

This might be easier to answer if you could send a complete MRS (perhaps
for a shorter example with the same property)...

Emily

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Paul Haley <paul at haleyai.com> wrote:

>  Hi Folks,
>
> I'm getting the subject relation with non-hole arguments:
>
>    - {ARG0=e61[declarative, indicative, ¬perfective, ¬progressive,
>    untensed]}, {ARG1=x55[individuated, plural, third]}]
>
> for a parse of the sentence:
>
>    - Some organisms survive and others die as the environment changes;
>    this changes the percent of organisms with certain traits in that
>    population.
>
> Here's the syntactic result of that parse, fyi:
>
>    -
>    'some'('organisms')('survive')('and'('others'('die'('as'('the'('environment'('changes')))))))('this'('changes'('the'('percent'('of'('organisms'))))('with'('certain'('traits'('in'('that'('population'))))))))
>
> The specific lexical entry involved is:
>
>    - certain_det := d_-_prt-pl_le & [ ORTH < "certain" >, SYNSEM [
>    LKEYS.ALTKEYREL.PRED _certain_q_rel, PHON.ONSET con ] ].
>
> And the relation is defined as follows:
>
>    - _certain_q_rel := explicit_quant_agr_q_rel.
>
> but I'm stumped on how it's landing up with ARGs instead of normal
> quantification arguments.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this is proper?
>
> Thank you,
> Paul
>
>
>
>


-- 
Emily M. Bender
Professor, Department of Linguistics
Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/erg/attachments/20150409/dc78aa81/attachment.html>