Right now, I’m working on implementing the analysis for specifier-like possessors that uses the normal head-spec-phrase, rather than head-compositional head-spec. In order to make it work, there’s a unary phrase rule that the possessor must go through that adds in the necessary semantics having to do with possession. This works just fine in cases where the possessor is marked (either by affix or adposition) as being a possessor. The problem is that there are cases where only the possessum is marked. In those cases, I can’t constrain the unary phrase rule to only target noun phrases with a POSSESSOR feature (because the possessor isn’t marked), and so it goes nuts and applies that unary rule to all noun phrases. I’m going to try to think of ways to constrain it, but right now, I haven’t come up with anything yet and wanted to throw it out there to see if anyone can think of possible solutions. Thanks!
Here’s the unary rule as presently constituted:
poss-unary-phrase := basic-unary-phrase & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CONT.HOOK #hook, CAT [ HEAD.POSSESSOR nonpossessive, VAL [ SPR #spr, COMPS #comps, SUBJ #subj, SPEC < [ LOCAL [ CAT [ VAL.COMPS < > , HEAD +np & [ PRON - ] ], CONT.HOOK #hook & [ INDEX #possessum & [ COG-ST uniq-id ], LTOP #lbl ] ] ] > ] ] ], C-CONT [ RELS <! arg12-ev-relation & [ PRED "poss_rel", LBL #lbl, ARG1 #possessum, ARG2 #possessor ], quant-relation & [ PRED "exist_q_rel", ARG0 #possessum, RSTR #harg ] !>, HCONS <! qeq & [ HARG #harg, LARG #lbl ]!>, ICONS <! !> ], ARGS < [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD.POSSESSOR possessor, VAL [ SPR #spr & olist, COMPS #comps & olist, SUBJ #subj, SPEC < > ], HEAD +np ], CONT.HOOK.INDEX #possessor ] ] > ].