Changing basic-head-mod-phrase-simple?


#1

For one bit of my analysis, I need to be able to let the user determine whether the modifier in a type that inherits from basic-head-mod-phrase-simple is a NOM or an NP – that is, whether the value of NON-HEAD-DTR...SPR on basic-head-mod-phrase-simple is 1-list or olist. The current definition of basic-head-mod-phrase-simple defines the value of NON-HEAD-DTR...SPR as olist. If I remove this constraint on basic-head-mod-phrase-simple and instead put it on the rules in matrix.tdl that inherit from it (scopal-mod-phrase, isect-mod-phrase, adj-head-phrase, head-adj-phrase), all the regression tests still pass. Are there theoretical, aesthetic, or procedural reasons for avoiding this? I could always define a new type that was identical to basic-head-mod-phrase-simple except for lacking this one constraint, but I’m thinking that avoiding that level of redundancy seems like a good idea.


#2

I’m pretty sure you’ll get broken MRSes if you try to have modifiers attaching to NP instead of NOM. What is configuration that seems to require this?


#3

So, what’s changing is not what the modifier attaches to, but the modifier itself. As far as I can tell, that doesn’t affect the MRSs, except for getting rid of the quantifier in cases where the modifier is a NOM. But the rest seems to work.

That said, the motivating example for including this switch was the construction in Ancient Greek where you get something like “the [the cat’s] paw” – that is, cases where the modifier is an NP. I am not quickly finding any examples of the modifier being a NOM – a lot of the examples I have of modifier-like possessives come from languages where only pronouns can act as modifier-like possessives (like Italian) so the NP/NOM distinction isn’t relevant. Perhaps it’s worth sending a request to lingtyp to see if this happens before trying to accommodate it?


#4

“getting rid of the quantifier” is also a problem, because it means you’ll have an x which is not bound by any quantifier, aka a broken MRS.

Even if the modifier is nominally a NOM, you’ll need to put the quantifier in for it somehow.

But more generally — if this is not an attested combination as far you know, then I wouldn’t try to accommodate it! (Though you could ask Lingtyp…)


#5

I’m not immediately seeing any examples of this in my lit review, so I’ll put this on the list of things to double check on later. Still not sure why I was so very certain I had examples, but I’ll prioritize other things before figuring this out. Thanks!