replied inline; sorry for possible confusion upcoming ...
>>
> I can't think of a clean way to say all those conditions in a reusable
> fashion.
>
> ok, so at least I'm not the only one ...
> Conceptually, how should AND work with templates and linking on from them?
> E.g., given Template X = (-1 x) AND (1 y LINK 1 z) ; used in a context (1 m
> LINK T:X LINK 1 n) where does the n look at?
>
> considering your example, it makes it much clearer to me why there i no
implementation the way I expected. Anyway: an AND would/could/should mean
that the context from the TEMPLATE X would have to hold for all
constraints, i.e. in your example (and I think this gets a little complex
now):
- for the original context: since m must be on position 1: check that and
if match, proceed with the following:
from m we start the template, we would than first check:
- from m on position -1 is x
- from m on position 1 is y LINKed to 1 z
--> if all that holds (otherwise we stop and get no match):
- since we have the still the LINK 1 n we would have to fullfill this
on both parts of the AND expression ...
Anyway: that turns into a weird case because of the positional constraints.
I wanted to use the dependency axis to implement something like:
ADD (VERB_subj_obja) TARGET (V) IF (c SUBJ)(c OBJA)(NONE c PP)(NONE c
OBJD)(NONE c OBJI)(NONE c OBJC)(NONE c NEGATOR_V); # ...
(and in this way, I get what I want:
in words: There must be SUBJ and OBJA but no child must be a PP, an OBJI,
an OBJC or a NEGATOR
--> "c SUBJ AND c OBJA AND NOT c PP AND NOT c OBJD AND NOT c OBJC AND NOT
c NEGATOR";
so basically all the contexts are "ANDed" (which turns into AND NOT through
NONE)
The question was just if I could integrate that into a template; maybe
using something like
TEMPLATE V_SO = (c SUBJ LINK cx OBJA NEGATE LINK cx PP)
and then putting it into the rule:
ADD (VERB_subj_obja) TARGET (V) IF (T:V_SO);
The idea is pretty simple: an enumeration of what is needed, what is
forbidden and for the other possible children, I don't care.
If I'd used NONE in the template, then I cannot LINK further (reasonably
...)
If I'd used NOT c X that would mean something else, like you pointed out in
the
group-thread
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/constraint-grammar/tpN42ZtFii4
--> "there exists a child which does not match X"
so my only way to come up with was the NEGATE cx X LINK NEGATE cx Y etc.
approach - but that breaks "AND-NOT"-chains ("I forbid A as child and B as
child and ...") since it considers the whole linked chain (and therefore
__not__ acting as a logical NOT (also according to the manual); and this
makes the sequence of the children which I want to forbid important - and
that is something I want to avoid; I wanted just to enumerate a set of
must-not-be-children in a template)
So what works in the end for me is just adding the contexts (to the list of
contexts); there is no abbreviation for that:
ADD (VERB_subj_obja) TARGET (V) IF (c SUBJ)(c OBJA)(NONE c PP)(NONE c
OBJI)(NONE c OBJC) etc.
A bit more elegant seems to be if I define SETs with the except-operator:
given that I have all verb_dep_roles something like
SET ALL_VERB_DEP_ROLES = ... #
SET SUBJ_OBJA = ...#
SET ALL_VERB_DEP_ROLES_BUT_SUBJ_OBJA = ALL_VERB_DEP_ROLES - SUBJ_OBJA
then
ADD (VERB_subj_obja) TARGET (V) IF (c SUBJ LINK cx OBJA)(NONE c
ALL_VERB_DEP_ROLES_BUT_SUBJ_OBJA)
(and maybe template-ify the first part of the SET of needed children)
> With OR, this is simple - look at the context that matched. With AND, it
> should conceptually look at both branches? That almost certainly doesn't
> make sense linguistically. Could make a new modifier to mark which branch
> to continue from.
>
> --> by no means I'd consider my strange question as a point for which
something should be added; neither is it logically thought through nor does
it have much relevance for normal constraint grammar approaches
best
Michi
> -- 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.
