Re: test PP sentences
> To set a framework; DIPETT successfully parses the first three of the
> following PP-rich sentences (the fourth is parsed fragmentarily):
*SYL: the 4th is rejected in 10 seconds for a simple reason: it contains
*SYL: four consecutive PPs. There's a (new) rule in DIPETT that sets the
*SYL: max. number of consecutive conjoined elements -- implicitly here --
*SYL: to 3. This only for practical reasons, of course. BTW, we don't need
*SYL: long chains of PPs to exemplify misattachment: one can do it!
> I printed the file in the morning.
> I printed the file in the morning on the printer.
> I printed the file in the morning on the printer by the desk.
> I printed the file in the morning on the printer by the desk in the office.
> The third sentence demonstrates misattachment. Parsing places all the
> PPs in a conj_pp list following the entity in a svoo_svoc_svoa (complement)
> svoo_svoc_svoa( [entity( ... ), [conj_pps( ... )] ] ).
> Correct attachment would have 'by the desk' appearing as a modifier of
> 'on the printer':
> noun( n(printer,countnoun),
> noun_modifiers( pre_modif(),
> post_modif( <'by the desk'_struct> ))))
> I think (but am not sure). Sylvain, your thesis speaks on p.82 of a
> non-terminal called 'appendage', but I guess this was eliminated as the
> grammar was refined. If this destination location is wrong, please let
> me know.
*SYL: Right you are, for the destination as well as for the 'appendage'.
> We all know that with the exception of positional NPs, PPs are the most
> frequent markers of Cases. I wonder if we could therefore view the conj_pp
> list in a complement as a list of CMs once reattachment had properly
> 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.