Re: RM stuff

**SYL: Ken is trivially right (;-^)! I didn't mean to parse Terry's
**SYL: suggestion and I should have done so, apparently. Gee, I tell
**SYL: you, those Ph.D. candidates today ...

==KEN: I resent your aposiopesis (unless the '...' stands for 'really 
==KEN: amazingly together people who know where their towels are').

%%TER: Perhaps since we are no longer in parsing with its objective of exactly 
%%TER: describing syntactic structure, the set of acceptable representations
%%TER: might be extended to:
%%TER:      np_postmodifiers([pp( Prep, Phrase, PTs ), PP ... ]).
%%TER: It is easy to envision 'the printer by the desk in the office at the end 
%%TER: of the hall'.

**SYL: One remark concerning your last point Terry: I would be inclined
**SYL: to stay away from modifs that could throw in some confusion about
**SYL: the parse structures. At least in the beginning. Let's keep
**SYL: verification as simple as possible.

==KEN: I'm not sure I get the last point.  Terry, are you suggesting
==KEN: that we do away with subtleties like 'conj_pp', etc.?  I'd be
==KEN: loath (or is that 'loathed'? ;-) to do it.  As an example, I
==KEN: call 'You can print on the laser printer OR on the plotter' as
==KEN: my first witness.  The disjunction would be lost.
==KEN: Also, I would completely nest your example sentence to
==KEN: something like:
==KEN:    'the ((((hall end) office) desk) printer)'
==KEN: which doesn't illustrate a conj_pp (or your simplified list of
==KEN: PPs).  Multiple PPs attached to a noun might be illustrated by
==KEN: something like:
==KEN:    'the printer at school in the lab on the desk'.
==KEN: Am I becoming too anal?


Follow-Ups: References: