[erg] _certain_q_rel
Paul Haley
paul at haleyai.com
Mon Apr 13 23:20:56 CEST 2015
Dan, you are correct. Someone here added it, probably because of
something like this:
Is certain different than than other quantifiers of the d_-_prt-pl.*_le
variety?
* a_great_many_det := d_-_prt-pl_le & [ ORTH < "a", "great", "many" >,
SYNSEM [ LKEYS.ALTKEYREL.PRED "_a+great+many_q_rel", PHON.ONSET voc ] ].
* enough_det := d_-_prt-plm_le & [ ORTH < "enough" >, SYNSEM [
LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED _enough_q_rel, PHON.ONSET voc ] ].
Thanks,
Paul
On 4/13/2015 4:53 PM, Paul Haley wrote:
> 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/20150413/718f2d79/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jggeghee.png
Type: image/png
Size: 24247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/erg/attachments/20150413/718f2d79/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the erg
mailing list