Re: canonical ordering (Re: Converses?) (Pat Hayes)
Message-id: <v02140b07ad7f7dd2aff5@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:32:12 -0600
To: (Bill Brayman)
From: (Pat Hayes)
Subject: Re: canonical ordering (Re: Converses?)
Precedence: bulk
>> CanTalkLongerThanInThePresenceOf(x,y,z,u)
>> between four people (a speaker, an addresee and an audience of two). Which
>> is which?
>why do I feel like I am walking into a trap when I raise the typing issue
>again...but anyway
>in ordinary language we often mark sentence components to indicate the
>role the element is playing such as(using Pat's example):
>So, to suggest a line of reasoning for Pat's question, his relation
>C(x,y,z,u) really is a constellation of relations that serve to define
>argument position.

OK, thats a  good purpose for things like 'addressee'. Two quick points.
(1) Might be better to think of these as functions: this avoids the
recursive issue of how to indicate *their* converse-pattern. (2) There
might be rather a lot of them, if we need one for every argument place of
every relation. (3) They now seem to have a rather heavy burden: typing,
converse-normalising (if I may coin a phrase), role-marking, relating
events to the things playing a role in them (as well as relations to their
arguments), etc  (?).


Beckman Institute                                 (217)244 1616 office
University of Illinois           (217)328 3947 or (415)855 9043 home
405 North Mathews Avenue                          (217)244 8371 fax

Urbana, IL. 61801