[matrix] Re: Spanish DO

[Montserrat Marimon]

Dear Emily,

Thanks a lot.

One more question: in the ERG the pform of empty (or marking) 
prepositions is specified by means of the SYNSEM.LKEYS.--COMPKEY 
feature,  isn't it? or is there any other feature encoding that 
information? if not, how could I express the constraint that if the DO 
is marked, it should be by the preposition "a" within the same lexical 
entry?  Examples:
- ví a María / tu trabajo (I saw Mary / your work)
- confundir algo con algo / confundir a alguien con alguien (to mix up 
something with something/someone with someone)
- la persona honra el trabajo (SVO)
- honra al trabajo la persona (VOS)
 
Thanks again,

    Montse.-



>Dear Montserrat,
>
>We've steered clear of "marking" analyses in the 
>Grammar Matrix, so that would not be the first
>avenue I would explore.  I think you might be able
>to get away without diversifying lexical types and
>entries by using suitable supertypes in the constraints
>that the selecting verbs place on their complements
>(so that they'll take either a PP or an NP).
>Then make sure that only certain NPs can show up in
>that kind of a PP.
>
>If that seems overly simplified, can you lay out
>the data that would be a problem?
>
>Emily
>
>p.s. I would like to post this discussion to the
>Matrix list, so that you can benefit from the input
>of others.  Is that okay with you?
>
>On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:51:14PM +0200, Montserrat Marimon wrote:
>  
>
>>Dear Emily,
>>
>>Can you help me to decide about the implementation of  DO in Spanish?
>>As you probably know, DOs in Spanish may be NPs, as in "ví la casa" (I 
>>saw the house) or marked NPs "ví a María" (I saw Mary). Thus, inanim DO 
>>are realized as NPs, and anim DO as marked NPs. Besides, inanim DO take 
>>the preposition "a" in ambiguous sentences, and anim DO may not have it 
>>in ditransitive verbs.
>>In order not to diversify lexical types nor lexical entries, I 
>>implemented them as marked NPs, leaving the marking value unspecified 
>>when appropiate. However, I'm wondering whether I should borrow from ERG 
>>and implement them as PPs, as I think this is the way marked NPs and 
>>implemented in the matrix grammar... what do you think?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>   Montse.-
>>
>>
>>    
>>