> On 20 Jan 2017, at 12:29, Tino Didriksen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I may be mistaken, but I've thought that NOT X and (*)-X are still different, even when the cohort exists: in order to match the contextual test NOT X, the cohort may not contain any X whatsoever. In order to match the test (*) - X, the cohort has to have something that is not X, but it may also have some X. Set operations are at one level, and operators like NOT and NEGATE only apply once the set operations are normalised wrt the readings in the cohort: (*)-X in the cohort with [X,Y,Z] matches [Y,Z]. Because we should still be able to say NOT (*)-X, right? Inari -- 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.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
