Re: the RM saga

• To: terry@csi.UOttawa.CA (Terry Copeck)
• Subject: Re: the RM saga
• From: Ken Barker <kbarker@csi.UOttawa.CA>
• Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 14:52:45 EDT
• Cc: kbarker@csi.UOttawa.CA, terry@csi.UOttawa.CA, Sylvain_Delisle@UQTR.UQuebec.ca
• In-Reply-To: <9507261842.AA04327@kamla.csi.uottawa.ca>; from "Terry Copeck" at Jul 26, 95 2:42 pm

Terry wrote:

> Well, in correct DIPETT trees, PPs don't modify each others' objects.
> If you want the functionality in reattachment to permit this, you had
> better make the argument, and better find some way to motivate the user 
> to perform the nesting that DIPETT will never present him or her with
> at the outset.

I thought this was the whole point of reattachment: to be able to
move PPs from modifying verbs to modifying nouns (wherever the noun
might be).  I can't imagine what use reattachment would be without
this.

[handling tokens]
> Not too bad for you perhaps, but I spent two days on token list appearances
> or disappearances--they were the bulk of the changes in v3.0 from the
> decomposition point of view.

"Not bad" is my hope.  In reality, I expect tokens to be the bane of
my existence.  I have yet to think of a way to avoid duplicating every
predicate (one for the token-free structs, one for the tokened).

Ken

• Re: the RM saga
• From:

• Prev: Re: the RM saga
• Next: Re: the RM saga
• Index: Mail Index
• Thread: Mail Thread Index