On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:11:40 -0400, neo gu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On Sat, 5 May 2012 14:37:17 -0400, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:47:21 -0400, neo gu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>It can't have 2 different restrictive arguments, if that's what you mean. Unless of course you have an example.
>>Well, if it is a grammatical rule of Apr20 that a word doesn't have two different restrictive arguments, then that's that.  But I could envision them having a use: you know, "those two party guests, _the one who's the father of the other_, have eaten all the hors d'oeuvres."  Although that's not an example of conflicting time inheritance yet.
>I haven't been able to translate that, with or without 2 restrictive arguments; care to attempt it for me?

Yeah, I realized after the fact that the "two" made it an example of something slightly different to what I was trying to exemplify.  I guess that to do this properly, I'd need to invoke a partitive "one of the two", _guest-i two-i DiP-one-j_, and then "the other one of the two", which I don't know whether you've handled at all.  And then _j-father-k_ eventually.

Better perhaps to eliminate this kink: er, say, "the guest, and his father who was among the honorees, did [...]"
  guest-i honoree-j j-father-i ...
um, and now we still need to make the conjunction of i and j the attributive link on the main verb.  Don't know how to do that either.  


>>Fair enough.  But even if one wouldn't use the A and B operators here, one can still step back and look at the set of kinds of secondary predication available.  You've invoked
>>  depictives, for which the time of the secondary predicate _is a superrange_ of the main one; and
>>  resultatives, for which the time of the secondary predicate _extends out from the endpoint_ of the main one (?or contains such a range).
>>This isn't a time-symmetric set of operations, so I wonder if there mightn't be more kinds.  
>There probably are, but I wouldn't know what to call them!

Mm, nor I.  But that doesn't stop you from designing the other kinds in functionality.

>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:39:47 -0400, neo gu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>AND can often be omitted. 
>>Not always?  
>Now that I think about it, it can always be omitted here; the indexes should take care of scope, unless there's some problem with complement clauses.
>>Anyway, here again, seeing a new word of an anomalous behaviour with a low yield, my impulse would be to work to eliminate it.  If the structures where AND isn't eliminable are, e.g., ones where it's necessary for disambiguation to scope under some other conjunction, might there instead be some way to do it with a different strategy, like your parenthesisation below?
>>And/or, maybe AND is identical with an adverb just meaning "indeed" or the like.
>That sounds suspiciously natlangy.

I don't know.  If it is, is that in itself a problem?  But I wasn't gòing for natlangy, just for not introducing unnecessary constructions simply to mimic constructions in the metalanguage -- you know, in the metalanguage "and" is a conjunction, but perhaps it's best it be something else here. 

>>On Wed, 2 May 2012 02:33:08 -0400, neo gu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>Apr20 Adverbs ....
>>>The following adverbs require proximity to the predicate modified, even though it's not very satisfactory.
>>I wonder if you could instead do adverbs using a restrictive version of the C link type.  If that were called  c , then one might construct your two examples as
>>  three-k day-k PUk-have_duration-c b-walk-1P
>>  "We walked for 3 days."
>>  John-i house-j Dj-b-leave-Di angry-k Uk-have_manner-c
>>  "John left the house angrily."
>>(or just 
>>  ... Dj-b-leave-Di angry-c  ?)
>I'm not sure what this -c link type does, and better to call it something else (-c is already a temporal index).

I realised that conflict, but thought it was unproblematic here since the -c temporal index wasn't being used.  I used a C 'cause of similarity to the C for complement clauses, but a lowercase letter 'cause it wasn't supposed to be assertive.  But, okay, I'll call it C' in this message instead.  

C' is meant to refer to an adjacent clause restrictively, just as C is meant to refer to an adjacent clause assertively.  The difference is potentially clearest for sentential adverbs:
  (1)   rock-i b-speak-Di b-surprising-C   "It was surprising that the rock spoke"
  (2)   rock-i b-speak-Di b-surprising-C'   "Surprisingly, the rock spoke"
where the subclause in (1) is promoted to main clause in (2) by virtue of the last word no longer being assertive.  

>Well, my answers are probably no better than they would have been days ago; I'm still working on the _Learn TIAL_ pages (the grammar's a mess).

No problem, there's no rush.