[erg] _certain_q_rel

[Paul Haley]

Good idea, Emily.  After trying to isolate why we couldn't get the 
on-line demo to demonstrate the same behavior, it appears than an edit 
to the name of a relation defined in fundamentals.tdl was responsible, 
although we can't figure out exactly how!

It turned out that working through our changes vs. the ERG as is, we 
found one point at which post-loading of QC.tdl generated some warnings 
about missing predicates.  Searching that file we cannot find any 
reference to those predicates, but it is machine-generated in some way.  
Could this have led to unifications working (or not) that should (not) have?

Just wondering, but thanks for the prod.

Paul

On 4/9/2015 9:56 PM, Emily M. Bender wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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/20150413/eab3e0e1/attachment.html>