Time expressions (proposal)

[omriabnd]

Ideally I'd like to ideally make all definite time expressions unanalyzalbe. So dates, days of the week, time of the day etc. The reason is that they have their own unique syntax, which I don't want to model (it's not part of the foundational layer and frankly it's not that interesting).
The problem is with cases like: the 3rd and 5th of November, where the time expression syntax interacts with the other types of syntax. I think in these cases, we can still say it's unanalyzable, even though it isn't, just so we won't get into this thorny bush.
What do you think?

[nschneid]

It seems like a slippery slope to start using unanalyzable for a) instances of fully productive patterns, and b) fully compositional phrases that use normal syntax but happen to convey a date/time ("this Tuesday at 4 late in the afternoon"—is "afternoon" part of a time expression, or just a descriptor? should the date and time be considered 1 unit or two? etc.).

Maybe the principle of the foundational layer is that it covers the abstract semantics of what IS expressed as predicate-argument or modifier-center relations, and expressions where we cannot designate a semantic head should have multiple centers:

arrive_P [on_R November_C 5_C , 2019_C]_T
arrive on the 5th of November in 2019 — normal elaborator/relator structures
[St. Louis UNA]_C , MO_C , USA_C
10_C [Main Street UNA]_C [Apt_C 207_E]_C

There's a question of what sorts of grouping to use: I put "Apt 207" as C-E because it's the 207th apartment/the apartment numbered 207, so "apartment" is arguably the semantic head. But when different parts of a "locator" expression provide a location at different scales, as with date/month/year, street/house number/apartment number, and city/state/country, it's harder to say that any of these components is the head of the others.

[omriabnd]

Good point. I agree with your analysis.

Dotan, what do you think?

[dotdv]

Yes, OK.

[dotdv]

arrive_P [on_R November_C 5_C , 2019_C]_T
arrive on the 5th of November in 2019 — normal elaborator/relator structures

If we mark "November 5, 2019" with multiple Cs then we should mark the second expression similarly, no?: the 5th_C [of November]_C [in 2019]_C

[nschneid]

If we mark "November 5, 2019" with multiple Cs then we should mark the second expression similarly, no?: the 5th_C [of November]_C [in 2019]_C

The second one has clear syntactic structure, whereas the first one lacks a clear head. My understanding is that the foundational layer targets the meaning relations associated with compositional syntax. Ideally there would also be another layer with temporal annotation to indicate that these are paraphrases.

[omriabnd]

I think this makes sense.

[omriabnd]

Dotan, will you formulate a letter to the annotator on this? Btw, I also added the explanation of expletives to the overleaf.

…

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 9:57 PM Nathan Schneider ***@***.***> wrote: If we mark "November 5, 2019" with multiple Cs then we should mark the second expression similarly, no?: the 5th_C [of November]_C [in 2019]_C The second one has clear syntactic structure, whereas the first one lacks a clear head. My understanding is that the foundational layer targets the meaning relations associated with compositional syntax. Ideally there would also be another layer with temporal annotation to indicate that these are paraphrases. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#54 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIG86wCm2xs0_rRbzeV7u2cxktTHJo2Bks5vENWagaJpZM4Z7bMN> .

[dotdv]

Yes, sure.
So do you think it should be:
He arrived [[on_R the_F 5th_C [of November]_E]_C [in 2019]_C]_T
or maybe:
on_R the_F 5th_C [of_R November_C [in 2019]_E]_E (maybe in this way the relations between the day month and year are better reflected)

[nschneid]

The first way. (IMO "of November" and "in 2019" both attach to "the 5th". If the month is known from context, you could say "on the 5th in 2019".)

However, if it were "the 5th of November of 2019", then "of 2019" would elaborate November.