<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Dan, you are correct.  Someone here added it, probably because of
    something like this:<br>
    <br>
    <img src="cid:part1.03070600.01060801@haleyai.com" alt=""><br>
    <br>
    Is certain different than than other quantifiers of the
    d_-_prt-pl.*_le variety?<br>
    <ul>
      <li>a_great_many_det := d_-_prt-pl_le &amp; [ ORTH &lt; "a",
        "great", "many" &gt;, SYNSEM [ LKEYS.ALTKEYREL.PRED
        "_a+great+many_q_rel", PHON.ONSET voc ] ].</li>
      <li>enough_det := d_-_prt-plm_le &amp; [ ORTH &lt; "enough" &gt;,
        SYNSEM [ LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED _enough_q_rel, PHON.ONSET voc ] ].</li>
    </ul>
    Thanks,<br>
    Paul<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/13/2015 4:53 PM, Paul Haley wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:552C2CE2.6090202@haleyai.com" type="cite">
      <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
      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!<br>
      <br>
      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?<br>
      <br>
      Just wondering, but thanks for the prod.<br>
      <br>
      Paul<br>
      <br>
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/9/2015 9:56 PM, Emily M. Bender
        wrote:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote
cite="mid:CAMype6emEYctyCgp8XZsZuc77a-1TkwgD3tcnYKBjVhuMMkSUg@mail.gmail.com"
        type="cite">
        <div dir="ltr">Hi Paul,
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>This might be easier to answer if you could send a
            complete MRS (perhaps</div>
          <div>for a shorter example with the same property)...</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>Emily</div>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
          <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Paul
            Haley <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>&gt;</span>
            wrote:<br>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi Folks,<br>
                <br>
                I'm getting the subject relation with non-hole
                arguments: <br>
                <ul>
                  <li>{ARG0=e61[declarative, indicative, ¬perfective,
                    ¬progressive, untensed]}, {ARG1=x55[individuated,
                    plural, third]}]</li>
                </ul>
                for a parse of the sentence:<br>
                <ul>
                  <li>Some organisms survive and others die as the
                    environment changes; this changes the percent of
                    organisms with certain traits in that population.</li>
                </ul>
                <p>Here's the syntactic result of that parse, fyi:<br>
                </p>
                <ul>
                  <li>'some'('organisms')('survive')('and'('others'('die'('as'('the'('environment'('changes')))))))('this'('changes'('the'('percent'('of'('organisms'))))('with'('certain'('traits'('in'('that'('population'))))))))<br>
                  </li>
                </ul>
                The specific lexical entry involved is:<br>
                <ul>
                  <li>certain_det := d_-_prt-pl_le &amp; [ ORTH &lt;
                    "certain" &gt;, SYNSEM [ LKEYS.ALTKEYREL.PRED
                    _certain_q_rel, PHON.ONSET con ] ].</li>
                </ul>
                <p>And the relation is defined as follows:<br>
                </p>
                <ul>
                  <li>_certain_q_rel := explicit_quant_agr_q_rel.<br>
                  </li>
                </ul>
                <p>but I'm stumped on how it's landing up with ARGs
                  instead of normal quantification arguments. <br>
                </p>
                <p>Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this is
                  proper?<br>
                </p>
                <p>Thank you,<br>
                  Paul<br>
                </p>
                <p><br>
                  <br>
                </p>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
          <br>
          <br clear="all">
          <div><br>
          </div>
          -- <br>
          <div class="gmail_signature">
            <div dir="ltr">Emily M. Bender<br>
              Professor, Department of Linguistics<br>
              Check out CLMS on facebook! <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="http://www.facebook.com/uwclma" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/uwclma</a><br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>