[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: test PP sentences
%TER: I printed the file in the morning on the printer by the desk.
%TER:
%TER: Correct attachment would have 'by the desk' appearing as a modifier of
%TER: 'on the printer':
%TER:
%TER: noun( n(printer,countnoun),
%TER: noun_modifiers( pre_modif([]),
%TER: post_modif( <'by the desk'_struct> ))))
*SYL: Right you are
=KEN: I disagree. This is a trivial point, but the 'by the desk'
=KEN: structure should appear within a np_postmodifiers() structure
=KEN: as the last argument of the entity() structure, not as a
=KEN: post_modif() within the noun_modifiers() structure. (I know,
=KEN: that's not the point here).
%TER: We all know that with the exception of positional NPs, PPs are the most
%TER: frequent markers of Cases. I wonder if we could therefore view the conj_pp
%TER: list in a complement as a list of CMs once reattachment had properly
%TER: subordinated its elements to one another.
*SYL: Once reattachment has been performed correctly, a verb's
*SYL: complement conj_pp should correspond to a list of CMs (and fillers).
*SYL: However, a noun may well have its own conj_pp (as postmodifiers) and
*SYL: these shouldn't be identified as Cases, obviously.
=KEN: True enough... but as Terry mentions, the list wouldn't include
=KEN: positional markers (or adverbial markers either). What would be
=KEN: the use of such a list, especially when CA gives us a complete
=KEN: CM list?
Follow-Ups:
References: