Re: the RM saga

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

[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).