Replied inline... On Friday, 13 January 2017 12:44:03 UTC+1, Michi Amsler wrote: > > given the case, that a word has no child at all, I would also like the > context to be true; > > - when I use the NOT keyword, the TESTFLAG is not added > - when I use the NEGATE keyword, the TESTFLAG is set > - also if NONE is used, the TESTFLAG is set > > it seems to me that if there is no child, the "NOT c MEMBEROFX" contextual > test seems to not yield true while NEGATED / NONE does? Why is that the > case? >
I think this was a quirk that got blessed into design. We wanted to support the case of asking "there exists a child which does not match X" (NOT c X) separately from "any potential child must not match X" (NONE c X). I don't recall the exact debate. Analogously, the C and ALL tests mean "there exists a child in which all readings match X" (cC X) versus "all children must match X" (ALL c X) versus "all readings in all children must match X" (ALL cC X). The problem is more that NOT also handles the missing case for topological scanning tests, e.g. (NOT -1* X) succeeds if there are no cohorts to the left, so the behavior for dependency is slightly different. I wish I could turn NOT into only affecting set matching (basically make it (*) - X), but there's too much history to do that. -- Tino Didriksen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Constraint Grammar" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/constraint-grammar. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
