<div><div dir="auto">hi alexandre,</div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">i would think that the numbers in both your examples function as cardinal adjectives (even if ‘2,5’ strictly speaking is not a valid number in english). thus, in my view they should be analyzed with the ‘card’ relation. the constant parameter (CARG) in that predication should of course reflect the actual value, i.e. ‘3.7’ or ‘2,5’.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">dan or maybe woodley will have to see how you end up with the invalid CARG value ‘1’. do all ‘card’ predications across the different readings have the wrong value? to help narrow this down, what happens if you try parsing in PET? in the on-line demonstrator (albeit still running ERG 1214), it appears the correct value is available.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">best wishes, oe</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div><img src="cid:1698a76466b2a430f2e1" style="max-width: 100%;"></div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 20:41 Alexandre Rademaker <<a href="mailto:arademaker@gmail.com">arademaker@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi all,<br>
<br>
I was examining numbers and units of measurement when I found these sentences and analysis. The number 3.7 is represented in the MRS with the predicate card with CARG “1”. The number 2,5 is represented as ‘card’ with CARG “2,5”. These are the best 1 output of ACE 0.9.30 with the ERG (trunk) and erg-2018-osx-0.9.30.dat distributed with ACE 0.9.30. <br>
<br>
SENT: Average ultimate production per acre for these fields is 3.7 MMCFG.<br>
[ LTOP: h0<br>
INDEX: e2 [ e SF: prop TENSE: pres MOOD: indicative PROG: - PERF: - ]<br>
RELS: < ...<br>
[ card<57:60> LBL: h35 CARG: "1" ARG0: e37 [ e SF: prop TENSE: untensed MOOD: indicative PROG: - PERF: - ] ARG1: x31 ]<br>
[ named<61:67> LBL: h35 CARG: "MMCFG" ARG0: x31 ] ><br>
HCONS: < h0 qeq h1 h5 qeq h7 h12 qeq h14 h20 qeq h22 h27 qeq h29 h33 qeq h35 ><br>
ICONS: < > ]<br>
<br>
SENT: Cumulative production after 20 years is estimated to be about 2,5 BCFG.<br>
[ LTOP: h0<br>
INDEX: e2 [ e SF: prop TENSE: pres MOOD: indicative PROG: - PERF: - ]<br>
RELS: < ...<br>
[ card<62:65> LBL: h28 CARG: "2,5" ARG0: x22 ARG1: i30 ]<br>
[ proper_q<66:71> LBL: h31 ARG0: x24 RSTR: h32 BODY: h33 ]<br>
[ named<66:71> LBL: h34 CARG: "BCFG" ARG0: x24 ] ><br>
HCONS: < h0 qeq h1 h5 qeq h7 h13 qeq h15 h19 qeq h20 h26 qeq h28 h32 qeq h34 ><br>
ICONS: < e2 topic x3 > ]<br>
<br>
<br>
Using fftb, I understood that better analysis would be possible for both sentences, not using the predicate `card`. What I didn’t understand is the reason to make CARG “1” for the token “3.7”. <br>
<br>
Sorry, it is probably one more sign of my ignorance of basic concepts! ;-)<br>
<br>
Best, <br>
Alexandre<br>
</blockquote></div></div>