<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Stephan,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thank you for your attention. It is strange the predicate `card` with an argument that is not a cardinal number (a generalisation of natural numbers), but a floating number. Anyway, the most important issue is indeed the lost of the actual original form.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the figure below, I got to the point where two analysis were possible. If I choose the lexical type `aj_-_-crd-gen_le` the MRS will contain `card CARG 3.7`. If I choose the lexical type `aj_-_i-one-gen_le` the MRS will contain `card CARG 1`.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the documentation that I found, both types [1] and [2] below have examples of floating numbers, but [2] is restricted to `Adj, generic one or sub-one fract or decimal, singular agreement`. So this explain why [1] better here. But why the grammar is licensing the analysis with [2]? Is it a pre-processing issue?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[1] <a href="http://compling.hss.ntu.edu.sg/ltdb/cgi/ERG_1214//showtype.cgi?typ=aj_-_i-crd-gen_le" class="">http://compling.hss.ntu.edu.sg/ltdb/cgi/ERG_1214//showtype.cgi?typ=aj_-_i-crd-gen_le</a> </div><div class="">[2] <a href="http://compling.hss.ntu.edu.sg/ltdb/cgi/ERG_1214//showtype.cgi?typ=aj_-_i-one-gen_le" class="">http://compling.hss.ntu.edu.sg/ltdb/cgi/ERG_1214//showtype.cgi?typ=aj_-_i-one-gen_le</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><img apple-inline="no" id="DDFA1649-A3E8-4CA9-8CC0-4426245D2A5B" src="cid:6A7B5190-346A-46E9-B029-F0EC2F4F1ACF@inf.puc-rio.br" class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I will try to parse with PET once I am more familiar with it. Maybe Dan and/or Woodley can add something here.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="">--<br class="">Alexandre Rademaker<br class=""><a href="http://arademaker.github.io" class="">http://arademaker.github.io</a><br class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 17 Mar 2019, at 04:04, Stephan Oepen <<a href="mailto:oe@ifi.uio.no" class="">oe@ifi.uio.no</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">hi alexandre,<br class=""><br class="">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’.<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">best wishes, oe<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><span id="cid:1698a76466b2a430f2e1"><IMG_4645.jpg></span><br class=""></blockquote><br class=""></div></div></body></html>