Re: the RM saga

just a short reply on a matter of accuracy.

> There's at least one PP in there that can't be attached at the top
> (or even second) level: 'of the hall'.  My point was that I don't 
> see the use of changing:
>    I kicked
>       the printer            /* (I kicked) the printer     */
>       on the desk            /* (I kicked) on the desk     */
>       in the office          /* (I kicked) in the office   */
>       at the end             /* ??(I kicked) at the end    */
>       of the hall            /* ??(I kicked) of the hall   */

Any NP postmodification by PPs requires a second level and I think
we all acknowledge that is needed (or what's reattachment for?) 
so the rep below is indeed what I meant by 'flat list'.
> to:
>    I kicked
>       the printer            /* (I kicked) the printer       */
>           on the desk        /* (the printer) on the desk    */
>           in the office      /* (the printer) in the office  */
>           at the end         /* ??(the printer) at the end   */
>           of the hall        /* ??(the printer) of the hall  */
Interpreting the flat list rigorously--?(the printer) of the hall--
is I agree incorrect.  But just as reattachment allows one to fix
the basic parse tree, so some subsequent process (I believe someone
in the project has a 'scoper') might correct an order-preserved list
of PP modifiers.

In a nutshell, do we fix only those errors in decomposed trees that
accord with DIPETT's grammar or do we fix all errors?
> But PPs modifying each other to indefinite depth is allowed by DIPETT.
If I heard Sylvain say this I'd take it as gospel.
> Well, I already use clause tokens in CLRA (if they're available).  And
> I can definitely envision showing the user PP tokens.  Tokens within
> the NP proper (without np_postmodifiers) are redundant to me, since
> I'm already stripping out each individual word (typically:
> intensifiers, determinatives, attributes, noun_modifiers and head).
Then you'll probably be interested in code that provides you with a
nice token list, subject and all, from */4 clauses.  It should be a
byproduct of reattachment.

( why don't we use each other's code more? )

Terry Copeck (terry@csi.uottawa.ca)