Maybe this is a “colloquial English” problem, but I’m getting very different parses for
"Is the lock a part of the safe?" vs
"Is the lock part of the safe?". One of my early users and I interpret them the same, FWIW.
Here’s the first parse of
"is the lock a part of the safe?". It looks like what’d I’d expect:
┌_safe_n_1__x:x13 _the_q__xhh:x13,h15,h16┤ │ ┌_lock_n_1__x:x3 └_the_q__xhh:x3,h6,h7┤ │ ┌_part_n_of__xx:x4,x13 └_a_q__xhh:x4,h10,h11┤ └_be_v_id__exx:e2,x3,x4 Logic: _the_q__xhh(x13, _safe_n_1__x(x13), _the_q__xhh(x3, _lock_n_1__x(x3), _a_q__xhh(x4, _part_n_of__xx(x4, x13), _be_v_id__exx(e2, x3, x4))))
Here is the first parse of
"is the lock part of the safe?" (missing the
┌_lock_n_1__x:x10 udef_q__xhh:x10,h12,h13┤ │ ┌_safe_n_1__x:x15 └_the_q__xhh:x15,h17,h18┤ │ ┌_be_v_id__eix:e2,i3,x4 └_the_q__xhh:x4,h6,h7┤ │ ┌compound__exx:e9,x4,x10 └and┤ └_part_n_of__xx:x4,x15 Logic: udef_q__xhh(x10, _lock_n_1__x(x10), _the_q__xhh(x15, _safe_n_1__x(x15), _the_q__xhh(x4, and(compound__exx(e9, x4, x10), _part_n_of__xx(x4, x15)), _be_v_id__eix(e2, i3, x4))))
It looks like this is saying “x4 is a part of the safe(x15) and x4 is also a compound noun-noun type term with the lock (x10)”? I may just be misunderstanding what
compound() is doing here.
What is the right interpretation of this second parse?
Update: Looking at it more, is it interpreting “lock part” as a compound as in: “is the [lock part] of the safe?” or something like that?