| { |
| "paper_id": "J81-2003", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:42:54.082246Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "The Meaning of OF and HAVE in the USL System", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Magdalena", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Zoeppritz", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "IBM Germany Heidelberg Scientific Center", |
| "location": { |
| "addrLine": "Tiergartenstrasse 15", |
| "postCode": "D-6900", |
| "settlement": "Heidelberg", |
| "country": "WEST GERMANY" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "This paper shows how the transformational relationship between HAVE-sentences and OF=phrases is used to represent data contained in sentences with HAVE as the main verb in the context of an information system using natural language to access a relational data base. An overview of the system first establishes the framework in which natural language processing is done. Then ways of representing HAVE are discussed with emphasis on the relation between HAVE and OF. The interpretation proposed and the interpretation process are illustrated by a list of representative queries and phrases against a small data base. In conclusion, this interpretation is extended to prepositional attributes with WITH and WITHOUT, and problems are discussed.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "J81-2003", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This paper shows how the transformational relationship between HAVE-sentences and OF=phrases is used to represent data contained in sentences with HAVE as the main verb in the context of an information system using natural language to access a relational data base. An overview of the system first establishes the framework in which natural language processing is done. Then ways of representing HAVE are discussed with emphasis on the relation between HAVE and OF. The interpretation proposed and the interpretation process are illustrated by a list of representative queries and phrases against a small data base. In conclusion, this interpretation is extended to prepositional attributes with WITH and WITHOUT, and problems are discussed.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The User Specialty Languages (USL) System translates input in natural language German into expressions in the formal language of the data base system associated with USL, accesses the data base with these expressions and transmits the results to the user either directly or after performing additional operations on the output. The system was developed at the Heidelberg Scientific Center of IBM Germany by H. Lehmann, N. Ott, the students K. Horl~inder and W. Sauermann, and the author.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "USL was designed to provide data base access for user groups whose requirements are not satisfied by standard programs and for whom having special programs written or learning to program themselves would not be feasible.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The system was to be capable of dealing with natural language in a variety of different application contexts and not restricted to a particular field or world. This purpose determined the methods used and the corresponding limitations of the system. Within these limits, we have tried in the implementation to incorporate the syntactic constructions to be expected in the context of data base interaction and to provide the correct interpretations for them.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The data base management system is an implementation of the relational model, the Peterlee Relational Test Vehicle (PRTV, Todd, 1975) with its data base language ISBL. This is the target language of the translation process. The method of translation is a substantial extension of the methods used in the REL System (Rapidly Extensible Language, Thompson et al., 1969 , Dostert et al., 1971 . This system treats natural language much like a formal language in that syntactic constructions and function words are interpreted by the system according to the semantics of the language built into the system, but nouns, verbs, and adjectives are treated as variables of which only the data type --the word class --is known.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 115, |
| "end": 133, |
| "text": "(PRTV, Todd, 1975)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 345, |
| "end": 366, |
| "text": "Thompson et al., 1969", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF19" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 367, |
| "end": 389, |
| "text": ", Dostert et al., 1971", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The underlying assumption is the following: The meanings of prepositions, dates, verbs like HAVE and BE and syntactic constructions, on the one hand, are independent of the subject matter; on the other hand, nouns, verbs, and adjectives and their meanings vary from application to application. In the context of a given data base, these words identify the names of relations; their meaning is restricted to the association between word and corresponding relation. Names and numbers identify values within tuples.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In USL, these words can be added to the system by the user to match the shape of the relations in his data base. A prompting routine guides the vocabulary definition and makes sure that all information needed by the system is entered.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The Meaning of OF and HAVE in the USL-System advantage is that the system knows only what has been explicitly defined by the user, and common sense knowledge, e.g. that an employee is a person or that a salary does not own a house, is not reflected in the system and is not used in the interpretation process. This also means that the interpretation can make only very restricted use of deep case relationships, because the information on deep cases would have to be obtained from the user. We see no way as yet to elicit this information reliably and consistently, without confusing or boring the user.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Magdatena Zoeppritz", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "When used for an application, then, the system works with two vocabularies, one user-defined, containing the nouns, verbs, and adjectives referring to the data base of his application, the other systemdefined, containing prepositions, quantifiers, interrogatives, particles, names of days and months, nouns referring to operations like minimum, maximum, plus, minus, etc., the verbs BE and HAVE, and adjectives like GREATER, MORE, and LESS.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Magdatena Zoeppritz", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The systemdefined words and their meanings to the system are the same for all applications.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Magdatena Zoeppritz", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The purpose of this paper is to discuss and demonstrate the interpretation of one of these systemdefined words: the verb HAVE when used as the main verb of a sentence. (HAVE as an auxiliary has not been implemented.) An overview of the system first establishes the framework in which this interpretation has its place. This is followed by a discussion of HAVE in general and possible representations of it in USL. The solution proposed here and implemented in USL uses the transformational relationship between HAVE-sentences and OF-phrases to represent and search data contained in HAVE-sentences in the relation addressed by the accusative of HAVE. This interpretation is applied to a list of representative queries and phrases against a small data base as a test of the interpretation and as an illustration of the interpretation process. In the concluding sections, the interpretation is extended to prepositional attributes with WITH and WITHOUT, and problems are discussed.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Magdatena Zoeppritz", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This section contains a brief overview of the system. More detail, particularly on the interpretation, is found in Ott (1977 Ott ( , 1978 , and Lehmann (1978) . Information on language coverage is found in Lehmann et al. (1977) , and documentation on the grammar is in preparation.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 115, |
| "end": 124, |
| "text": "Ott (1977", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 125, |
| "end": 137, |
| "text": "Ott ( , 1978", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 144, |
| "end": 158, |
| "text": "Lehmann (1978)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 206, |
| "end": 227, |
| "text": "Lehmann et al. (1977)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The system consists of three parts:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "1. Parser and grammar rules 2. Function processor and interpretation routines 3. Data base and data base language", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The system contains about 800 syntactic and 200 lexical (system-defined words) rules. The rules are mostly context-free, with some context-sensitive and some transformational rules, written in a modified Backus Normal Form (BNF). Each rule contains the name of an interpretation routine written in PL/1, which performs operations in correspondence to the meaning of the syntactic construction.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The parser and function processor are USAGE (User Application Generator), developed at the IBM Paris Scientific Center, along the principles of Kay (1967) , with considerable modifications and extensions. It works from left to right, bottom-up, through the input string. The input is tested against the rules, and rules are applied wherever there is a match, lexical rules first. The result is several disconnected subtrees, which are discarded, and one or more trees spanning the entire input. Only the full parses are processed further. Each node in the tree contains the name of the interpretation routine from the grammar rule used in its construction.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 144, |
| "end": 154, |
| "text": "Kay (1967)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The function processor walks down the tree and calls the interpretation routines associated with each node. In the original concept developed for REL, the interpretation routines were executed on the spot and the result was passed as an input parameter to the next routine. This procedure proved insufficient for the interpretation of quantifiers, negation, and coordinated structures. The original concept was changed so that now the interpretation routines do not simply pass on a result, but successively build a structure reflecting semantic dependencies indicated by the syntactic structures, the names of the relations, columns and values taking part in these dependencies, as well as information on syntactic function and scope of individual elements in the tree. This structure is processed recursively and translated into expressions in the data base language ISBL (cf. Ott, 1979, and Lehmann, 1978 , for detail on the interpretation process).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 879, |
| "end": 893, |
| "text": "Ott, 1979, and", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 894, |
| "end": 907, |
| "text": "Lehmann, 1978", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The resulting ISBL strings are passed to the database management system to access the data base and perform the update or retrieval operations requested. In the simple case, if the answer is a list or table of items, and the question calls for nothing more, the answer is formatted and printed. For yes/no questions, the return code from the data base is translated to the proper answer. Questions involving some types of quantification and arithmetic need further processing on the answer.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The data base is relational.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Relations can be thought of as tables with rows and columns. Noun, verbs, and adjectives refer to relation names; they can be words in the language or words invented for a specific purpose.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Names of columns within relations, so-called role names are standardized in USL. They correspond to the complements of the nouns, verbs, or adjectives. This often coincides with their valence, but is not valence in the strict sense, because it does not matter in USL whether complements are obligatory or optional in the language, but only whether these complements are needed in the application. Thus, a relation SUPPLIER can be defined with two, three, or more columns, depending on the data and purposes of the data base containing it, e.g.: supplier of product supplier of product to recipient supplier of product to recipient at time Joan is the daughter of Harry makes the system look for a relation DAUGHTER with two columns, NOM and OF, to add the tuple Joan, Harry. DAUGHTER NOM OF", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The System", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The words IS, THE, and OF, as well as the constructions SUBJECT-OF and PREDICATE-NOMINAL-OF, are understood by the system. DAUGHTER is known to be a noun and therefore a relation name.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Joan Harry", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "JOAN and HARRY are unknown strings and therefore assumed to be values in a relation. Within this framework, the verb HAVE is one of the system-defined words. The following section discusses the interpretation of HAVE in the USL system and the reasons for this interpretation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Joan Harry", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Compared with the extensive discussion of the verb BE, which is accorded special treatment both in linguistics and logic, the verb HAVE does not seem to have appeared in any way problematic. Syntactic peculiarities have been observed --a transitive verb which does not readily admit the passive --and a wide range of meanings are given in any dictionary, many of them idiomatic. For sentence analysis within a data base context, the major question is that of where to store information contained in sentences with HAVE as the main verb and from where to retrieve it. In the interpretation found in Cresswell (1973) or Bennet's (1974) extension of Montague, HAVE appears as a two-place predicate.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 618, |
| "end": 633, |
| "text": "Bennet's (1974)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This interpretation is also widely accepted in artificial intelligence. BUt, as we are going to show, the interpretation leads to incorrect results and should be abandoned.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "HAVE as a two-place predicate in a relational data base would have to be set up as a relation HAVE with two columns, one for the subject, one for the objects of HAVE-sentences. The tuples of the relation would contain the individuals (names, part numbers, figures) among which the relation HAVE holds. However, a closer look at the contents of such a relation shows that two places, one for the subject and one for the object, are not enough. Given the facts that:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "John has a secretary by the name of Pauline From this would follow correctly that \"John has (daughter) Polly\" and \"John has (secretary) Pauline\" but also that \"John has two secretaries\", because both Polly and Pauline are secretaries.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The relationship between elements expressed as \"x has y\" is too vague; it can apply in too many cases, and can often be reversed \"if x has (daughter) y, then y has (parent) x\"; so that at least the specific relationship that makes it possible to speak of x having y would have to be recorded in a third column: \"x has y as z\". In that case, the examples above would not lead to John's having two secretaries:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "HAVE NOM ACC AS John Pauline secretary John Polly daughter", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "What is written in the third column sometimes appears overtly in sentences, but it is not part of the valence of HAVE, so that it would be difficult to require HAVE to be used only with reference to the relationship in the third column. Furthermore, the fact that the items in the third column are names of relationships and not names of individuals is significant in itself. This leads to the conclusion that HAVE should not be regarded as a primitive predicate at all, but as a derived predicate, derivable just in case some other relationship exists between the individuals in question.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "With different aims and from a different point of view, this has already been observed by Bach (1967:476-77 ):", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 90, |
| "end": 107, |
| "text": "Bach (1967:476-77", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It has often been said that be has no meaning by itself but only in connection with Predicate, the passive construction, and so on. The same is true of have. The two forms are distinguished syntactically from most true verbs by the fact that they have no selectional restrictions in themselves, but occur in constructions where the selections reach across from \"subject\" to \"object\" or complement. Likewise, from a semantic point of view, their contribution tO the meaning of the sentence is determined completely by the items that they link.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Conversely, HAVE can only be used meaningfully to link elements where some other relationship determining the nature of that link is expressed or can be inferred. The vague term \"some other relationship\" needs more clarification than can be given at this time. It is clear that the relationship must be representable as a two-place predicate, but many such predicates do not serve as the basis for deriving HAVE. It seems, for instance, that the relations expressed by action verbs do not permit HAVE to be derived directly, though their agent nominalizations often do:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "John teaches Jack", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 # John has Jack # Jack has John", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "John is the teacher of Jack = Jack has John as his teacher", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The relationships most often associated with HAVE are those of possession and ownership.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "That the meaning of HAVE is much wider is commonplace. (A detailed analysis of the syntactic properties of HAVE and their association with different meanings is found in Pitha 1971 and . Still, the verbs OWN and POSSESS can be replaced by HAVE without intervening nominalization and the extension of John has a bicycle from John owns a bicycle to John has a bicycle in his possession seems artificial. On the other hand, the conclusion:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 170, |
| "end": 184, |
| "text": "Pitha 1971 and", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If John has a bicycle, then he owns a bicycle is plausible and often true, but not necessarily so, and will be false with different choices of objects. In the case of inalienable possession as the objects of HAVE sentences, the conclusion is absurd, so that the objects of HAVE and OWN are taken to refer to different entities (Bierwisch, 1965) . Nevertheless, while it is clearly impossible to restrict the interpretation of HAVE to possession, any other interpretation will face the problem that HAVE is often used as a synonym of OWN or POSSESS (cf. section 6). This may be the reason why HAVE is often regarded as a primitive for possession (e.g. Langacker, 1975) . There is a transformational relationship between HAVE and OF, already discussed e.g. in Bach (1967) :", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 327, |
| "end": 344, |
| "text": "(Bierwisch, 1965)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 651, |
| "end": 667, |
| "text": "Langacker, 1975)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 758, |
| "end": 769, |
| "text": "Bach (1967)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Peter has a daughter Joan Joan is the daughter of Peter But there is a peculiarity: Whereas HAVE can be used with names, as well as with names and common nouns, whereby a relationship is implied if if is not overtly expressed (e.g., We each have our own room, I have A101), OF is rarely used only with names:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Peter has A202 ?(The) A202 of Peter but", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Peter has a room The room of Peter This seems to show that, unlike HAVE-sentences, OF-phrases are acceptable only where the relationship between individuals is not implied but overtly stated. There is no base relationship underlying the use of OF, the base relationship is the one preceding OF in the OF-phrase. Furthermore, OF-phrases seem to be the specific means to express such relationships. The \"secretary of Peter\" is the individual which is related to Peter via the relationship \"secretary of\".", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "OFphrases cannot be expanded in the same way as HAVE-sentences can be expanded by AScomplements to introduce the \"real\" base relationship. And, because the base relationship is overtly stated, OF-phrases cannot be reversed:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "?(The) Peter of the secretary In this sense, OF-phrases can be considered as being more explicit than the HAVE-sentences into which they can be transformed. This led to the decision to interpret HAVE sentences in USL as transformations of OF-phrases and consequently to search or store information in HAVEsentences not in a relation representing the verb, but in the columns with the role-name OF in relations addressed by the nouns in the sentence.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The following uses of OF are not transformationally related to HAVE and are excluded here:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Helen of Troy piece of chalk distance of 3 miles love of God angel of a nurse the destruction of the city basket (full/out) of wood man of property For the purposes of data base query, some of these constructions with OF do not seem to be necessary. Measure expressions are desirable, but have not been implemented.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "An unsolved problem is how OFphrases resulting from nominalizations of verbs can be related within the USL framework in a general way to the verb or to the event referred to. The remaining uses of OF have a range of meaning similar to HAVE in expressing not only possession and part-of relationships, but also any number of other relationships which, in the case of OF, are explicitly named by the noun preceding OF and, in the case of HAVE, can be inferred from the nouns or occur explicitly in the AScomplement.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "All uses where OF is related to HAVE, as well as some of the other uses, can in German also be expressed by genitive attributes (not all are possible in English because of the restricted use of the genitive). The uses related to HAVE also appear as possessive pronouns.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Genitive attributes, as well as possessive pronouns, are interpreted in the same way as OFphrases. An additional selection operation for possessive pronouns is necessary to obtain a match between the individual members of the sets referred to by the possessive and addressed by the head noun of the possessive.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If the transformational relationship between HAVE-sentences and OF-phrases is to be used, and HAVE-sentences access the OF-column of relations (the column with the role name OF), there are still two possibilities: Given the sentence:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Which manager has a secretary? a first interpretation addresses the OF-column of MANAGER and compares the contents of that column with the list of secretaries: \"Is there a manager of somebody, is that somebody a secretary, and if so, who is the manager '", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The set of x, such that x is a manager of y and y is a secretary:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{x[ Ey(M(x,y) A S(y))}", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This interpretation is valid only where secretaries are managed by the people whose secretary they are, but fails for:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Which manager has room 35?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "unless the room of the manager is also contained in the OF-column of MANAGER. In general, this interpretation will work only where everything a manager can have is contained in the OF-column of MANAG-ER and is therefore not useful as a general solution. Furthermore, the interpretation is unable to handle correctly sentences like:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Which manager has a musician as his secretary? Which manager has a secretary as his musician? 1 It assigns the following interpretation to both sentences:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{xlEy(M(x,y) A S(y) A Mu(y))} though their meaning is clearly different.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "1 The possessive pronoun here and in the examples below makes for better reading of the English glosses, the German examples do not have it and it is not necessary for the discussion.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A second interpretation of the sentence below:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Which manager has a secretary? searches in the OF-column of the accusative, SECRE-TARY, for an entry that is also listed in MANAGER: \"Is there a secretary of somebody, is that somebody a manager, and if so, who is it\":", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The set of x such that there is a y who is a secretary and y is secretary of x and x is a manager:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{xlEy(S(y,x) A M(x))} Accordingly:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Which manager has room 35?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The set of x such that the room of x is 35 and x is a manager:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{xl A(x,35) A M(x)}", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The second solution does not require that everything a manager can have is found in the OF-column of manager.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The selection starts with the relation named by the direct object of HAVE. In this way it is also guaranteed that the relation specified actually obtains between the respective individuals.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the example:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Which manager has a secretary? the secretary requested is not just any secretary, but the secretary of this manager, not perhaps a colleague of this manager and the secretary of another.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This interpretation also distinguishes between the two sentences with AS-complements, whereby the complement takes the place of the accusative and the accusative is treated as an apposition to it.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Interpretation of HAVE", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The set of x such that y is secretary of x and y is a musician and x is a manager:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Which manager has a musician as his secretary?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{xlEy(S(y,x) A M(x) A Mu(y))}", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Which manager has a musician as his secretary?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Which manager has a secretary as his musician?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Which manager has a musician as his secretary?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The set of x such that y is musician of x and y is a secretary and x is a manager:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Which manager has a musician as his secretary?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{xlEy(Mu(y,x) A M(x) A S(y))}", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Which manager has a musician as his secretary?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The first solution could be used as an escape if the other interpretation does not yield a result, but it leads to multiple interpretations with the same result for relations that are defined as converses of one another. In other cases, this interpretation leads to. answers where the answer should be undefined: Which manager has 5000? (salary, personnel, or what) Which manager has A202? (room, car, personnel number)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Which manager has a musician as his secretary?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As a result, the second interpretation has been implemented in its strict form: There is generally no answer defined for queries in which the object of HAVE does not contain a relation. In human dialogue, such questions can often be answered because either it is clear that HAVE means POSSESS or BE PART OF, or because what corresponds to the relation appears from the context.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 299, |
| "end": 310, |
| "text": "PART OF, or", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Which manager has a musician as his secretary?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In order to see whether relating the subject of HAVE to the OF-column of the accusative of HAVE is a correct and general solution to the problem of interpreting HAVE, this interpretation was tried out with sentences containing HAVE and six types of noun phrases relevant in USL: names, quantified common nouns, common nouns preceded by interrogatives, relative pronouns, interrogative pronouns, and noun phrases with apposition, all both in subject and object positions. Coordinated noun phrases were not tested separately, because they are expanded into as many separate sentences as there are noun phrases in the coordination. Similarly, where there is no negation, common nouns preceded by quantifier or preceded by interrogative do not require different interpretations with respect to HAVE.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Quantifiers trigger several transformation operations on the ISBL-string resulting from the translation (Ott, 1977) , but the translation is the same. Interrogatives indicate which columns of the result are to figure in the answer. Appositions of the type \"secretary Moser\", \"Moser as secretary\" (including AS-complements of HAVE) have been ineluded, because the first type furnishes a selection from the relation addressed, and the second type the relation itself.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 104, |
| "end": 115, |
| "text": "(Ott, 1977)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The relevant features then are: name, noun, interrogative, referent of relative pronoun, and negation. The following section lists the test phrases for these cases, but not all their permutations. Also, appositions are not shown for relative clauses, for the sake of brevity. The list illustrates how the interpretation of HAVE outlined here is implemented in USL. For each case, the general ISBL expression which results from the interpretation of HAVE is formed. Then examples are formulated against a sample data base and translated into ISBL expressions according to the general schema, and the results of the data base operations triggered by the ISBL expression are shown, together with the columns taking part in the selection operations. The examples have been left in German, with glosses in English, because some of the constructions tested cannot be formulated in English in the same way. In the actual implementation, the select operation precedes the join for reasons of economy. The result is an equi-join, where only those tuples are joined where the equality requested by the select operator exists. This join is shown for the test cases wherever it applies.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Similarly, where only one relation is involved, the tuples resulting from the selection operation are shown, not the whole relation. The columns inspected for selection are shown in full. For the present example, the result of the equi-join is the tupie:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "( MA x SEK )", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Sauer Konig Moser Sauer", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The columns inspected for selection are the NOMcolumn of MANAGER and the OF-column of SEC-RETARY:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "NOMma = OFsek Stern Sauer Stern Koni g Sauer KiJfer", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Equality is true for \"Sauer\". The corresponding data is now projected, Sauer and the secretary of Sauer:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "NOMma , NOMsek Sauer Moser", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The printed result of the operations and answer to the question Which manager has which secretary? then is:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "MANAGER SECRETARY Sauer Moser", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the case of negation in wh-questions and relatiVe clauses, a set thus found is subtracted from the set to be projected, so that \"which manager does not have a secretary\" is interpreted as \"find the managers who have secretaries and subtract them from the set of managers, to get the managers who do not have secretaries\". In yes/no questions, also, the positive case is searched in the data base, and the answer depends on whether the result is an empty set. So, \"does: Moser have no manager\" is interpreted as \"find the manager of Moser\". If the resulting list is empty, there is no manager of Moser and the answer is YES, if it is not, the answer is NO. 2", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The test cases are ordered as follows: A. No negation 1. Questions a. Two relations: subject and object are nouns b. Relation and interrogative pronoun: subject or object is an interrogative pronoun c. Relation and name: subject or object is a name d. Apposition, two relations, one in the nominative e. Apposition, two relations in the accusative f. Apposition, three relations g. Apposition, name in the accusative h. Apposition, name in the nominative i. Apposition and two interrogative pronouns the apposition belongs to one of the pronouns 2 DOCH was selected as the answer in GERMAN, because NO confuses those speakers who use NO to answer negated questions in the affirmative. The accusative is not a relation; the answer is not defined. ((NOMxAPP)) ;NOMnom = OFapp) % NOMwh only for appositions to the accusative The relation in the apposition takes the place of the relation in the accusative in the scheme for A.l.a. If one of the two relations is in the nominative, and the other in the apposition to the accusative, the formulation \"whom as\" is equivalent to \"which\".", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Test of the Interpretation", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Which manager has whom as a secretary?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A.l.c. Relation and name", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "is equivalent to Which manager has which secretary?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A.l.c. Relation and name", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If the question begins with the accusative, there are two readings: one placing the apposition with the preceding nominative, and a second reading which places it with the accusative. This second reading is the preferred reading. Therefore, the examples The name and the apposition are permuted by the grammar, so that the input to the translation is the same as in the previous example. Again, the first reading associates \"manager\" with the noun phrase preceding it, and there is no answer. The second reading places the apposition with \"wen\" and is translated like the previous example, though with different relations. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A.l.c. Relation and name", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Prepositional phrases containing WITH and WITH-OUT can also be related to OF-phrases (Lees 1960:93) and to HAVE (Poldauf I967:33f.) , unless the prepositions are governed by the verb or are part of instrumental, comitative, or adverbial phrases.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 85, |
| "end": 99, |
| "text": "(Lees 1960:93)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 112, |
| "end": 131, |
| "text": "(Poldauf I967:33f.)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Where WITH-phrases are defined as prepositional complements of nouns, verbs or adjectives, they are related to the corresponding WITH-column in the corresponding relation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "WITHOUT should then be treated as \"not with\", but this is not implemented. Phrases containing WITH and WITHOUT that are not complements are interpreted in tile following manner: The NOM-column of the relation addressed by the noun governing the prepositional phrase is related to the OF-column of the relation addressed by the prepositional phrase. As a result, except for the columns, for projection and subtraction, the following groups of phrases each have the same transIation: In conclusion, some of the problems of this interpretation must be pointed out. If there are relations POSSESS or OWN in the data base, HAVE sentences could be meant to refer to these relations. But there is no mechanism that automatically would look for such relations and either access them directly or resort to them if the standard interpretation fails. A solution to this problem is for the user to define HAVE as a synonym for POSSESS.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(SEK;", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "He can then delete the system-defined HAVE altogether, if he is sure to use HAVE only in the sense of OWN. But he will probably want his definition in addition to the system defined HAVE. This leads to two parses and interpretations. In many cases only one of them will bring resuits, but sometimes both lead to the same answer. Thus, Does John have a secretary?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "will be interpreted both as:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Is there a secretary of John? and Does John own a secretary?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "where the second interpretation will fail. But the query Does John have a car?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "can bring answers to both interpretations, depending on the structure of the data base.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A consequence of not having a relation HAVE on the one hand and on the other of expecting alt adverbials and prepositional phrases to refer to columns in relations causes difficulties where prepositions are used in conjunction with HAVE and also with BE, as in questions like:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "WITH and WITHOUT", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To whom is Peter married?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "When is Peter's birthday? Is Peter's birthday on Friday?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The German equivalent of the last two questions uses the verb HAVE:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Wann hat Peter Geburtstag?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Hat Peter am Freitag Geburtstag?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For sentences with HAVE and BE as the main verb, the adverbials and prepositional phrases which have been attached to the verb by the grammar are relocated to the noun phrase addressing the relation that contains the corresponding columns.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For the examples above, this means the columns LA, P=to, and TA, respectively, in the relations OFFICE, BIRTHDAY, and MARRIED.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A serious problem for which we currently have no solution results from the fact that there is no interpretation where the accusative does not contain a relation. As can be seen from the examples, it is often intuitively clear what the interpretation of such sen-tences could be. \"The secretary who has Sauer\" could easily be the secretary of Sauer in the context of \"who has whom to work for\", but in the context of \"who has which manager\", the \"secretary who has Sauer\" can be the one whose manager is Sauer.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As was shown above, the predicate HAVE is a derived predicate, it is applicable only where a more basic association exists between the elements in question. This predicate is found explicitly expressed, where HAVE sentences are expanded by AS-complements.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Peter has a musician as secretary", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If there is no AS-complement and the accusative of HAVE contains a common noun, that noun generally points to the predicate; the AS-complement would be redundant.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Peter has a musician can be read as Peter has a musician as his musician But in the proper context, the base predicate can be clearly something else: In a conversation about hobbies of secretaries, the same sentence \"Peter has a musician\" can mean Peter has a musician as his secretary", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In human dialogue the general rule that the base predicate appears in the accusative noun phrase can be overridden by special contexts, but in the general case the rule holds and can be used in the framework of data base interaction. In the absence of reference to a predicate in the accusative of HAVE, the base predicate can only be deduced from the context. It can be one of the properties of the element in the accusative, e.g. Sauer's being a manager, a father, or an employer, or it can coincide with the predicate referred to by the nominative. Therefore, the attempt at interpretation of such sentences would lead to choosing among plausible alternatives, choices that would remain arbitrary even if carefully made, and the results would be unreliable. We have avoided this at the cost of not providing general interpretations for these cases, even though the individual case is often intuitively interpretable, because we feel that in the framework of data base interaction it is more important for the system to react consistently and reliably than to simulate human dialogue.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Since this paper was originally written, the USL System has moved to using System R as the data base management system, with SQL as the query language and target language for the interpretation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The PRTV-version of USL has been used by small groups in their applications, and initial results are encouraging (Lehmann et al., 1978 , Krause, 1979 . Further study is necessary, particularly with respect to data-base design and vocabulary definition by users.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 113, |
| "end": 134, |
| "text": "(Lehmann et al., 1978", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 135, |
| "end": 149, |
| "text": ", Krause, 1979", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Where does Peter have his office?", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "American Journal of Computational Linguistics, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June 1981", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The general schema would look like:(NOMwh-(ACC;OFacc) % NOMacc)But since the interrogative pronoun does not contain a relation, there is no set to subtract from. These questions cannot be answered in USL, because the set often implied by the context or the meaning of words is not known. The set is given by formulations like \"which x does not have y\". These examples can be interpreted as \"who of the people having secretaries have a secretary other than Moser\". This interpretation is not implemented, because for the majority of negated questions containing interrogative pronouns, there is no interpretation in USL. So the exceptions are not interpreted either, to avoid confusion.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "annex", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The general schema would look like: (OFacc-( (ACC ;NOMacc = APP) % OFacc) )The examples above would be translated as: ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "B.I.c. Relation and name", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Have and be in English syntax", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "E", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Bach", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1967, |
| "venue": "Language", |
| "volume": "43", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "462--485", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Bach, E. (1967): \"Have and be in English syntax,\" Language 43, 462-485.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Some extensions of a montague fragment of English", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [ |
| "R" |
| ], |
| "last": "Bennet", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1974, |
| "venue": "UCLA Dissertation, Indiana Linguistics Club", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Bennet, M.R. (1974): \"Some extensions of a montague fragment of English,\" UCLA Dissertation, Indiana Linguistics Club (1975).", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Eine Hierarchic syntaktisch-semantischer Merkmale", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Bierwisch", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1965, |
| "venue": "Studia Grammatika V", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "29--86", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Bierwisch, M. (1965): \"Eine Hierarchic syntaktisch-semantischer Merkmale,\" Studia Grammatika V, 29-86.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Relational completeness of data base sublanguages", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "E", |
| "middle": [ |
| "F" |
| ], |
| "last": "Codd", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1972, |
| "venue": "Research Report RJ", |
| "volume": "987", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Codd, E.F. (1972): \"Relational completeness of data base sublan- guages,\" Research Report RJ 987, IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, California.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Logics and Languages", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Cressweu", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1973, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "CressweU, M.J. (1973): Logics and Languages. London.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "The syntax of REL English", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "B", |
| "middle": [ |
| "H" |
| ], |
| "last": "Dostert", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "F", |
| "middle": [ |
| "B" |
| ], |
| "last": "Thompson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1971, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dostert, B.H., and Thompson, F.B. (1971): \"The syntax of REL English,\" REL Report No. 1, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Experiments with a powerful parser", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kay", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1967, |
| "venue": "Second International Conference on Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kay, M. (1967): \"Experiments with a powerful parser,\" Second International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Grenoble, August 1967,", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Preliminary results of a user study with the 'User Specialty Languages' System and consequences for the architecture of natural language interfaces", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Krause", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1979, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Krause, J. (1979): \"Preliminary results of a user study with the 'User Specialty Languages' System and consequences for the architecture of natural language interfaces,\" Technical Report TR 79.04.003, IBM Heidelberg Scientific Center.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Functional stratigraphy", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [ |
| "W" |
| ], |
| "last": "Langacker", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1975, |
| "venue": "Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Langacker, R.W. (1975): \"Functional stratigraphy,\" Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, April 17, 1975, (ed. R.E.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "The Grammar of English Nominalizations", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [ |
| "B" |
| ], |
| "last": "Lees", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1960, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lees, R.B. (1960): The Grammar of English Nominalizations, The Hague.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Language facilities of USL/German, Version III", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lehmann", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ott", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Zoeppritz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1977, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lehmann, H., Ott, N., and Zoeppritz, M. (1977): \"Language facilities of USL/German, Version III,\" Technical Note TN 77.04, IBM Heidelberg Scientific Center, 1977.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "User experiments with natural language for data base access", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lehmann", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ott", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Zoeppritz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1978, |
| "venue": "Proceedings 7th International Conference on Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lehmann, H., Ott N., and Zoeppritz, M. (1978): \"User experi- ments with natural language for data base access,\" Proceedings 7th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Ber- gen, Norway, August 1978.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Interpretation of natural language in an information system", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lehmann", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1978, |
| "venue": "IBM Journal of Research and Development", |
| "volume": "22", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "560--572", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lehmann, H. (1978): \"Interpretation of natural language in an information system,\" IBM Journal of Research and Development 22, 5, 560-572.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "Interpretation of questions with quantifiers and negation in the USL System", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ott", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1977, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Ott, N. (1977): \"Interpretation of questions with quantifiers and negation in the USL System,\" Technical Report TN 77.10.005, IBM Heidelberg Scientific Center.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "Das experimentelle, auf natOrlicher Sprache basierende Informationssystem USL", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ott", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1979, |
| "venue": "Nachrichten fuer Dokumentation", |
| "volume": "3", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "129--139", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Ott, N. (1979): \"Das experimentelle, auf natOrlicher Sprache basierende Informationssystem USL,\" Nachrichten fuer Doku- mentation 3, 129-139.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF16": { |
| "ref_id": "b16", |
| "title": "Remarks on Possessivity", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "P", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pitha", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1971, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "16", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "33--46", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Pitha, P. (1971): \"Remarks on Possessivity,\" Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 16, 33-46.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF17": { |
| "ref_id": "b17", |
| "title": "Remarks on Possessivity II", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "P", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pitha", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1972, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "17", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "25--36", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Pitha, P. (1972): \"Remarks on Possessivity II,\" Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 17, 25-36.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF18": { |
| "ref_id": "b18", |
| "title": "The have construction", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "I", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Poldauf", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1967, |
| "venue": "Prague Studies in English", |
| "volume": "12", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Poldauf, I. (1967): \"The have construction,\" Prague Studies in English 12, 40.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF19": { |
| "ref_id": "b19", |
| "title": "REL: A rapidly extensible language system", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "F", |
| "middle": [ |
| "B" |
| ], |
| "last": "Thompson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "P", |
| "middle": [ |
| "C" |
| ], |
| "last": "Lockemann", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "B", |
| "middle": [ |
| "H" |
| ], |
| "last": "Dostert", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [ |
| "S" |
| ], |
| "last": "Deverill", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1969, |
| "venue": "Proceedings 24th National ACM Conference", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Thompson, F.B., Lockemann, P.C., Dostert, B.H., and Deverill, R.S. (1969): \"REL: A rapidly extensible language system,\" Proceedings 24th National ACM Conference, New York, August 1969.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF20": { |
| "ref_id": "b20", |
| "title": "PRTV -A technical overview", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "S", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J P" |
| ], |
| "last": "Todd", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1975, |
| "venue": "IBM Scientific Center", |
| "volume": "15", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "285--308", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Todd, S.J.P. (1975): \"PRTV -A technical overview,\" Technical Report UKSC 0075, IBM Scientific Center, Peterlee, England, (also in IBM Systems Journal 15, 285-308).", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "TABREF2": { |
| "text": "NOMnom NOM-column of the relation in the nominative OFnom OF-column of the relation in the nominative NOMacc NOM-column of the relation in the accusative OFacc OF-column of the relation in the accusative NOMapp NOM-column of the relation in the apposition OFapp OF-column of the relation in the apposition", |
| "html": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>APP</td><td colspan=\"3\">relation/value in the apposition</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>NOMwh</td><td colspan=\"4\">NOM-eotumn of the relation with interrogative</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>NOMrel</td><td colspan=\"4\">NOM-column of the relation governing the</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">relative pronoun</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>MA</td><td colspan=\"3\">relation MANAGER</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>SEK</td><td colspan=\"3\">relation SECRETARY</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>NOMma</td><td colspan=\"4\">NOM-column of the relation manager,</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">similarly NOMsek, OFma, OFsek, NOMmus</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>x</td><td colspan=\"2\">join operator</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>;</td><td colspan=\"2\">select operator</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>%</td><td colspan=\"2\">project operator</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>subtract</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>=</td><td>equal</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>&</td><td>and</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">The string</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">((NOMxACC) ;NOMnom=OFacc) %NOMwh</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">reads as \"join the relations addressed by the nomina-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">tive and accusative of HAVE, select those tuples</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">where the NOM-column of the relation in the nomina-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">tive equals the OF-column of the relation in the accu-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">sative, and project for printing the NOM-column of</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">those relations where the noun phrases contain inter-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">rogatives.\" In terms of a question against the sample</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">data base this means:</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">Which manager has which secretary?</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">NOM, the relation in the nominative, is MA for MAN-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">AGER, ACC is SECRETARY: MAxSEK. NOMnom</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">is the NOM-column of MANAGER, OFace is the</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">OF-column of SECRETARY, the relation in the accu-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">sative: NOMma=OFsek.</td><td colspan=\"2\">Both nominative and accu-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">sative noun phrases contain interrogatives. Therefore</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">the NOM-columns of both must be projected for out-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">put: \u00b0/bNOMma,NOMsek.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">((MAxSEK) ;NOMma = OFsek) % NOMma,NOMsek</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">The following data base operations result from this</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">string: join of the relations MANAGER and SECRE-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>TARY:</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">MANAGER</td><td colspan=\"2\">SECRETARY</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>NOM</td><td>OF</td><td>NOM</td><td>OF</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Stern</td><td>Moser</td><td>Moser</td><td>Sauer</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Stern</td><td>Moser</td><td>Mahle</td><td>K~Snig</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">The sample data base contains the following rela-tions:</td><td>Stern Stern Stern</td><td>Moser Mahle Mahle</td><td>Maier Moser Mahle</td><td>KiJfer Sauer KiSnig</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">MANAGER</td><td colspan=\"2\">SECRETARY</td><td>MUSICIAN</td><td>Stern</td><td>Mahle</td><td>Maier</td><td>Kiifer</td></tr><tr><td>NOM</td><td>OF</td><td>NOM</td><td>OF</td><td>NOM</td><td>Sauer</td><td>KiSnig</td><td>Moser</td><td>Sauer</td></tr><tr><td>Stern</td><td>Moser</td><td>Moser</td><td>Sauer</td><td>Moser</td><td>Sauer</td><td>KiSnig</td><td>Mahle</td><td>KiSnig</td></tr><tr><td>Stern</td><td>Mahle</td><td>Mahle</td><td colspan=\"2\">KiSnig Pahle</td><td>Sauer</td><td>KiSnig</td><td>Maier</td><td>Kiifer</td></tr><tr><td>Sauer</td><td colspan=\"2\">KiSnig Maier</td><td>Ki.ifer</td><td>Peter</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>Notation:</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>NOM</td><td colspan=\"4\">relation/value in the nominative of HAVE</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>ACC</td><td colspan=\"4\">relation/value in the accusative of HAVE</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table" |
| }, |
| "TABREF4": { |
| "text": "", |
| "html": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Welchen Manager hat Moser?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Which manager does Moser have?</td></tr><tr><td>(</td><td>MA</td><td colspan=\"2\">;OFacc=Moser) %NOMma</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Stern Moser Moser</td><td>Stern</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Mahle</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Kon i g</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">A.lGeneral schema:</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>General schema:</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>(ACC;OFacc=NOM) % NOMcc</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>Welcher Manager hat Moser?</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>Which manager has Moser?</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>The accusative is not a relation; the answer is not</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>defined.</td></tr></table>", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table" |
| }, |
| "TABREF5": { |
| "text": "", |
| "html": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>A.l.g. Apposition, name in the accusative</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>General schema:</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>(ACC;NOMacc=APP) %OFacc</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Wer hat die Sekret~irin Moser?</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Who has the secretary Moser?</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>(</td><td>SEK</td><td>;NOMsek=Moser) %OFsek</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Moser Sauer Moser</td><td>Sauer</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Mahle</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Meier</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Wer hat Moser als Sekret~irin?</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Who has Moser as his secretary?</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Welcher Manager hat wen als Sekret~irin?</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Which manager has whom as his secretary?</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Wen hat welcher Manager als Sekret~irin?</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Whom does which manager have as his secretary?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">are all translated like:</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Welcher Manager hat welche Sekret~trin?</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Which manager has which secretary?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">A.l.e. General schema:</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">((ACCxAPP) ;NOMacc= NOMapp) % OFapp,NOMwh</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Wer hat welehen Manager als Sekret~irin?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Who has which manager as his secretary?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Welchen Manager hat wer als Sekret~trin?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Which manager does who have as his secretary?</td></tr><tr><td>( (Ma</td><td>x</td><td>SEK )</td><td colspan=\"2\">;NOMma=Nomsek) %OFapp,NOMma</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">There is no equality</td><td>Stern Moser</td><td>NONE FOUND</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">so the join is empty</td><td>Stern Mahle</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>Sauer Maier</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">A.l.f. Apposition, three relations</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">General schema:</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">((NOMxACCxAPP);</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">NOMnom= OFapp&NOMacc= NOMapp) % OFapp</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Welcher Manager hat einen Musiker als Sekret~irin?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Which manager has a musician as his secretary?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">(( MAx MUS x SEK ) ;NOMma=OFsek&NOMmus=NOMsek) %OFsek</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Sa. Ko. Mo. Mo. Sa. Stern Sauer Moser Moser</td><td>Sauer</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Stern Konig Pahle Mahle</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Sauer Ku'fer Peter Maier</td></tr></table>", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table" |
| }, |
| "TABREF6": { |
| "text": "", |
| "html": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">General schema:</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">(APP;OFapp=NOM) %NOMapp</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">only for appositions to the accusative</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Wen hat Sauer als Sekret~irin?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Whom does Sauer have as his secretary?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">In one reading of this sentence, \"as a secretary\" is</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">II read as apposition to Sauer , and the question cannot 11</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">be answered. The second, preferred, reading of the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">sentence places the apposition with the accusative:</td></tr><tr><td>(</td><td>SEK</td><td colspan=\"2\">;OFsek:Sauer) %NOMsek</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Moser Sauer Sauer</td><td>Moser</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>K~n i g</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Kufer</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Where the name is in the apposition,</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Wen hat die Sekret~irin Moser?</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Whom does the secretary Moser have?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">there is no second reading: the answer is not defined.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">General schema:</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">(APP;NOMapp) \u00b0/b NOMapp,OFapp</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">only for appositions to the accusative</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Wer hat wen als Sekret~irin?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Who has whom as his secretary?</td></tr><tr><td>(</td><td>SEK</td><td colspan=\"2\">;NOMsek) %OFsek ,NOMsek</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Moser Sauer Moser</td><td>Sauer Moser</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Mahle Konig Mahle</td><td>Konig Mahle</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Maier KiJfer Maier</td><td>Ku'fer Maier</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Wen hat wer als Manager?</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Whom does who have as his manager?</td></tr></table>", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
