Open nschneid opened 2 years ago
Clarification: should it be considered an outer subject if the copular predicate is a gerund (VBG)? E.g. I encountered the sentence
I think it should be nsubj:outer(telling, narcissism) because a local subject of "telling" could be inserted (e.g. "you") or expressed with a possessive ("your").
cop
dependents: http://universal.grew.fr/?custom=62c6e5b56b8af
Hm, this would vastly increase the number of :outer
relations, and may well make it impractical to automatically add :outer
to datasets without manual inspection. As long as there are two subjects (and it was not an annotation error, in which case 'not our fault'), it is probably close to trivial to add :outer
to any TB, but for cases like this I can imagine there are various constructions we would not consider to be truly nested but could look like this, and which probably vary quite a bit across languages.
But I'm probably the wrong person to be commenting on this, since I don't think of nesting as a type of grammatical function in general. Do you have thoughts on this @manning ?
We already have nsubj:outer
documented for "the important thing is to keep calm". I guess I'm wondering whether the VBG form is more gerund-like and whether this a cause for concern. But I guess if it has an object, that means we're treating it as projecting a clause.
Just want to point out a beautiful example:
"we will have to look at Plan B which would be to put the metering on our ROW"
Currently, "which" is the basic subject of "be". It should become the outer subject of "put".
But it is a relativizer, so the edep that is changed is E:nsubj(be,B) -> E:nsubj(put,B) ("B" is considered the head of "Plan B").
I notice that sometimes the clause-serving-as-predicate is sometimes a coordination. Should the outer subject be propagated as enhanced nsubj:outer for both verbs, or just the first one?
Semantically I don't see a need to say that "sign" is separately a subject of both "drags" and "has", but perhaps we should propagate coordinations irrespective of meaning?
[x] In EWT, 21 hits for 'be' with an xcomp dependent, mostly indicating conditionality/subjunctive mood? Should 'be' be an aux instead? This doesn't feel like a copula to me. GUM is inconsistent (a couple aux examples and a couple cop examples among other uses of cop).
should the outer subject be propagated as enhanced nsubj:outer for both verbs
yes, I would expect that
regarding "X is to VERB" meaning "X must VERB", I think making 'be' the head would be odd, not just because be is rarely the head but also because it's modal - if "must" is not the head in such constructions, then neither should be be.
As for the deprel, I could see doing aux, but then we would have an infinitive governing an nsubj directly without cop, which doesn't explain the morphosyntax well. So maybe cop is actually the more elegant analysis overall. But if you think aux is much better I could go along with that (more faithful to the modality thing, less faithful to the agreement pattern).
then we would have an infinitive governing an nsubj directly without cop
Right, though that also happens with for-to infinitivals.
aux seems more straightforward to me than cop.
I can live with that. Can implement in GUM.
Fun example with subject-aux inversion: "it was very difficult to see what I would actually look like were I to purchase some of these dresses."
Implemented in GUM, it's really quite rare though
@amir-zeldes also
Thanks, all fixed, plus some more stuff
Update: the main work adding :outer
is done. There are still open checkboxes above with queries that surface some issues with copulas in general. Would be good to fix these at some point.
The plan is still being finalized. Here are cases with multiple enhanced subjects that need looking at: