Subreadings in Constraint Grammar - Revision history

Unhammer: /* A special set for "has-subreading" */

2015-12-10T21:20:05Z

A special set for "has-subreading"

2015-12-10T21:19:35Z

Wishlist

2015-06-11T11:46:07Z

REMOVE SUB:*

2015-06-11T11:45:55Z

VISL CG-3 syntax

2014-09-10T11:10:10Z

REMOVE SUB:*

2014-09-10T11:10:01Z

(a)+SUB:1(b) – requirements on both main and sub-readings at once

2014-06-10T06:52:39Z

REMOVE SUB:*

2014-06-10T06:52:25Z

REMOVE SUB:*

2014-06-10T06:51:42Z

(a)+SUB:1(b) – requirements on both main and sub-readings at once

2014-06-10T06:28:58Z

VISL CG-3 syntax

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 Note: This is typically meant to be used on the main reading, so that you can have rules like
-<pre>REMOVE compound IF</pre
+<pre>REMOVE compound IF …</pre>
 or
 <pre>MAP (@FOO) IF (-1 compound + Pl LINK …)</pre>
 (note that the <code>(*/1)</code> is a "tag" of the main reading here, so the + Pl means that the main reading is plural, and there is at least one subreading below the main reading).
 ===(a)+SUB:1(b) – requirements on both main and sub-readings at once===

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 ==Wishlist==
+===A special set for "has-subreading"===
+The same way that you can do
+<pre>LIST match-any = (*)</pre>
+it would be nice to be able to do e.g.
+<pre>LIST compound = (*/1)</pre>
+to match on any (sub)reading that has at least one subreading.
+Note: This is typically meant to be used on the main reading, so that you can have rules like
+<pre>REMOVE compound IF</pre
+or
+<pre>MAP (@FOO) IF (-1 compound + Pl LINK …)</pre>
+(note that the <code>(*/1)</code> is a "tag" of the main reading here, so the + Pl means that the main reading is plural, and there is at least one subreading below the main reading).

@@ Line 147: / Line 147: @@
 Or even as a variable, assuming people don't name their sets "SUB:1":
 <pre>SET verb-verb-compound = (vblex) + SUB:1 (vblex);</pre>
-===REMOVE SUB:*===
-It's currently not possible to say e.g.
-<pre>REMOVE SUB:* (pr) IF (1 (vblex));</pre>
-The expected behaviour would be to remove any reading which has a pr on some sub-reading if there's a following verb.
-The workaround is to do
-<pre>REMOVE (pr) IF (1 (vblex));
-REMOVE SUB:1 (pr) IF (1 (vblex));
-REMOVE SUB:2 (pr) IF (1 (vblex));
-REMOVE SUB:3 (pr) IF (1 (vblex));</pre>
-etc. as high as your analyser allows.

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
   ADD (@P←) TARGET (n) IF (-1C/* (pr)) ;
+You can now do
+<pre>REMOVE SUB:* (pr) IF (1 (vblex));</pre>
+to remove any reading which has a pr on some sub-reading if there's a following verb.
+The old workaround was to do
+<pre>REMOVE (pr) IF (1 (vblex));
+REMOVE SUB:1 (pr) IF (1 (vblex));
+REMOVE SUB:2 (pr) IF (1 (vblex));
+REMOVE SUB:3 (pr) IF (1 (vblex));</pre>
+etc. as high as your analyser allowed.
 ==Wishlist==

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 <pre>SET verb-verb-compound = (vblex) + SUB:1 (vblex);</pre>
-==REMOVE SUB:*==
+===REMOVE SUB:*===
 It's currently not possible to say e.g.

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
   ADD (@P←) TARGET (n) IF (-1/* (pr)) ;
+or to say that all readings of the previous word are unambiguously pr (on one of the sub-readings):
+  ADD (@P←) TARGET (n) IF (-1C/* (pr)) ;
 ==Wishlist==