Open mebwells opened 2 months ago
:Comp
not :Mod
since they are nominalizations of verbs that would express these PPs as objects. Does in an action in the same court have multiple attachment sites? Otherwise looks ready to merge in
Upon review, I think there are potentially many attachment sites (one could argue that almost every preposition in that statement could have several different attachments...), but out of context I'm not sure which ones are valid interpretations in terms of what the law is trying to say
:Comp
not:Mod
(see Section 5.4.1):“of the district…” corresponds to an argument of the verbal form reside (e.g., He resided in the district…).
“of the district…” is ‘obligatory’ in the same way that an of-PP is ‘obligatory’ for the noun feasibility, as discussed in SIEG:
As discussed on 08/29, though, there’s a prima facie tension with analyzing this of-PP as
:Comp
when other, similarly ‘relational’ nouns (e.g., paragraph in [1]; schedule in [2]) supposedly can attach to:Mod
of-PPs that correspond to one entity in the ‘relation’.[1] https://github.com/nert-nlp/legal-cgel/blob/main/datasets/oneoff/9-2.cgel [2] https://github.com/nert-nlp/cgel/blob/dec764379cf81f0915c8f81599d803ecc047ce89/datasets/ewt.cgel#L606C3-L606C38