Open AngledLuffa opened 9 months ago
Agreed, Number
should be restricted to non-ADJ NNPs.
What about plural forms like "Attorneys General"? Are those "Attorneys/PROPN+NNPS General/ADJ+NNP"? -- Note the switched noun/adj positions. In which case the ADJ+NNP should never be plural.
I think modifiers within a proper name that do not themselves have plural marking are NNP, not NNPS, even if the head is NNPS.
E.g., "United States" is "United/ADJ+NNP States/PROPN+NNPS" in EWT and "United/VERB+NNP States/PROPN+NNPS" in GUM.
E.g., "United States" is "United/ADJ+NNP States/PROPN+NNPS" in EWT and "United/VERB+NNP States/PROPN+NNPS" in GUM.
Agreed about the Number, but why is "United" ADJ in EWT? I thought this was consistent, aren't the States literally "United" with each other? If it means that they have undergone unionization, then shouldn't the lemma be "Unite"?
It's the whole adjective/past participle difficulty. You can say a group is very united, for example.
Yes, see my comment just now here. ON has both tags for lowercased "united", though JJ is the majority tag. For the criteria in the link, the relative paraphrase decides it for VBN ("united people" can be "people who are united by ...")
There are a couple times where
Secret Service
orSecret Agent
haveSecret
tagged as UPOSADJ
and XPOSNNP
. It has the featuresDegree=Pos|Number=Sing
in that case. Perhaps that should just beDegree=Pos
related to https://github.com/UniversalDependencies/UD_English-PUD/issues/37