Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

be/VERB is suspect #404

Closed
nschneid opened this issue Jun 10, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed

be/VERB is suspect #404

nschneid opened this issue Jun 10, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor

Many of these look like they should be AUX, stranded due to ellipsis (cf. #403).

@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor Author

@amir-zeldes If "there is..." should stay VERB, what about "there seems to be"?

nschneid added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 23, 2023
@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor Author

Used the following DepEdit script:

; AUX for "be" (excl. "there is", "there seems to be")
lemma=/be/&upos=/VERB/;xpos=/EX/	#1>#2	#1:storage=has_expl
lemma=/be/&upos=/VERB/&func=/xcomp/;xpos=/EX/;func=/.*/	#3>#1;#3>#2	#1:storage=has_expl
lemma=/be/&upos=/VERB/&storage!=/has_expl/	none	#1:upos=AUX

@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor Author

Related: "do", "have" VERB->AUX #403

@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor Author

A few more where the tag doesn't match the tree (excepting tag questions)—AUX should be VERB for existential, or copula is incorrectly promoted: https://universal.grew.fr/?custom=64bca7e416fb4

@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor Author

nschneid commented Jul 28, 2023

@amir-zeldes Does the above (extending to existentials in an xcomp) look OK?

nschneid referenced this issue in LeonieWeissweiler/UCxn Aug 1, 2023
@amir-zeldes
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM, incorporating into GUM

@nschneid nschneid closed this as completed Oct 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants