-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement guidelines for sufficiency/excess constructions #423
Comments
@amir-zeldes the first and third of these queries point to errors in GUM too |
I assume "big enough for a rabbit" should be treated like "big enough to hold a rabbit" |
GUM cases fixed, thanks! |
I take it these are licensed by the comparative, so should attach to the adjective? Right now they attach to the noun. |
I see how the "adopt" one should depend on "best", but I'm less sure for the others. The first one could be fronted and therefore attached to the predicate:
The third one could also be attached to the predicate (so not to "mood" per se, but to "(be) in a better mood". But I also see how the "than" makes an attachment to "better" make sense. Would it be the same if it said "I'm in a much better mood compared to this morning"? |
For the EWT ones: Honestly I think this is a fuzzy area of syntax because we're so good at reconstructing the overall meaning. We understand that the meaning of "best" is qualified (best for a purpose, not necessarily best in general). But it's hard to tell whether "best" is syntactically licensing the complement clause or whether the connection is pragmatic. Maybe both are valid parses. For the GUM one, I think you need the comparative to license "than". You don't need a comparative to license "compared to":
|
OK, will attach to better |
UniversalDependencies/docs#672 clarified these guidelines.
#106 addresses "so ADJ/ADV (that) CLAUSE".
Here we address "too", "enough", etc.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: