<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>></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 & [ ORTH <
"certain" >, 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>
</body>
</html>