Possessives with secondary

[ftyers]

We have a question with how to annotate (1), especially with respect to (2)

(1) Mul on laps haige.
     Me-on is child ill
    `I have a poorly child' / `My child is poorly'

(2) Mul on laps.
     Me-on is child
    `I have a child' / *`child is mine'

We think the analysis should be:

1 Mul       4    nmod:own
2 on         4   cop
3 laps       4   nsubj
4  haige   0    root

Is there a similar case in Finnish or other languages? I know in Spanish you can say something like "Tengo las manos congeladas" but this is a slightly different construction.

[jnivre]

Shouldn't it be "obl" or "obl:own", rather than "nmod:own" given that it attaches to the predicate?

[ftyers]

Yes, read obl:own for nmod:own, well spotted!

[dan-zeman]

Isn't it secondary predication? I see two predicates there: "child is on me (I have a child)" and "child is ill". That could lead to something like

  1   Mul     PRON   0   root
  2   on      AUX    1   cop
  3   laps    NOUN   1   nsubj
  4   haige   ADJ    3   acl

[jnivre]

Well, it depends on which paraphrase you trust. If it essentially means "my child is poor", I don't think it should be analysed as secondary predication.

[kmuis]

Nominal in adessive (pronoun 'mul' in the example) in this kind of constructions is termed „external possessor”; I would rather agree with the annotation proposed by ftyers, so 'haige' would be the root.

[dan-zeman]

OK, fine with me.

[ftyers]

@fginter can something similar be done in Finnish, if so, what is the analysis that you use there ?

[jmnybl]

In Finnish you can say "mulla on lapsi sairaana", but I did not find this from our treebank. But we have "sulla on koti olemassa" (on_you is home existing), which means "you have a home" and "the home exists". Is this something similar?

[ftyers]

@jmnybl If you had "mulla on lapsi sairaana" in the treebank how would it be analysed ? @kmuis does this look like the same thing?

[kailimp]

The typical pattern is: [Noun-adessive] [is] [shortened sentence] Mul on auto roostes I-ad is car in the rust - My car is rusting Naisel on kõrvaklapid peas Woman-ad is earphones in the head - A woman wears earphones Mul on kõht tühi I-ad is stomach empty - I am hungry But one could also say Mul läks kõht tühjaks I-ad went stomach empty-trans - I became hungry Mul jäi kõht tühjaks I-ad remained stomach empty-trans - I remained hungry

I would analyse it as Obl-poss root xcomp Now, the question is what is the head of the shortened clause Mul on kõht tühi obl-poss root ncubj:cop xcomp Mul on kõrvaklapid peas obl-poss root xcomp obl ? Mul on kodu olemas - I-ad is home exist-in obl-poss root nsubj xcomp?

[kmuis]

I would still say that it should be annotated as a copular clause, annotating the external possessor (mul, naisel) as obl:poss. roots would be roostes, peas, tühi; I'm not so sure about 'olemas'. Mul on kõht tühi vs Mul läks kõht tühjaks - we annotate differently Ma olen kodus (I'm at home) and Ma läksin koju (I went home) anyway?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Kaili Müürisep notifications@github.com wrote:

The typical pattern is:

Mul on auto roostes I-ad is car in the rust - My car is rusting Naisel on kõrvaklapid peas Woman-ad is earphones in the head - A woman wears earphones Mul on kõht tühi I-ad is stomach empty - I am hungry But one could also say Mul läks kõht tühjaks I-ad went stomach empty-trans - I became hungry Mul jäi kõht tühjaks I-ad remained stomach empty-trans - I remained hungry

I would analyse it as Obl-poss root xcomp Now, the question is what is the head of the shortened clause Mul on kõht tühi obl-poss root ncubj:cop xcomp Mul on kõrvaklapid peas obl-poss root xcomp obl ? Mul on kodu olemas - I-ad is home exist-in obl-poss root nsubj xcomp?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/UniversalDependencies/docs/issues/409#issuecomment-277241002, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APZrFLqq0IqJ3WTvkq2ef3omazoiyMibks5rYySMgaJpZM4LyjY7 .

[jmnybl]

@ftyers That's a tricky question, I'm happy we don't have it. :)

I can imagine making it copula structure based on the category 4b, so "mulla" would be root and "lapsi sairaana" would be subject or maybe clausal subject if you want to analyse it as a shortened copula clause. Or do lapsi >nmod sairaana.

I think our plan was to make these copulas such that the owner is root and the owned thing is copula subject. That way we would not have nmod:own or obl:own anymore, but would attached the :own suffix to somewhere else.