OsloAncientGreekCoordination

• W: I don't know Greek, but others in the room do...

• Argument order is syntactically free w/in a clause

• Coordination

  • XP kai XP kai XP
  • Also "both and" versions:
    • te XP kai XP
    • XP te kai XP
  • discontinuous: XP (something) kai XP

• Corpora

  • W went through 2 corpora and found instances of discontinuous coordination
  • New testament and Herodotus

• E.g.

  • "Grace and peace to you": grace.F.NOM.SG you.DAT.PL and peace.F.NOM.SG

• Berthold asks about determiners

  • W: determiners are often repeated
  • Guy: how do you represent the agreement with the discontinuous determiners?
  • W: ...
  • Olga: is the "grace to you" example something like gapping (e.g. .... and peace (to you)
  • W: many examples could be compatible with that theory, but not this example
    • Hebrews 9:4
    • 1st Timothy 1:15
    • Acts 13:16
      • Dag: I've written an article about this one; it's an interesting example; paul is the subject of the participle and the matrix verb, but structurally paul is realized in the participle clause; it's a weird control structure
    • Acts 5:31
      • w: coordinated nouns, but interrupter is the conjuncts and interrupter argument of something else
    • Revelation 18:24
    • Matthew 11:19

• EMB: what about extraposition; how far can you get by saying the first bit causes extraposition

• W: ... also see (golden) (have) (altar) -> golden altar

• Guy: perhaps there are two phenomena happening together

• EMB: it's not always going to the right of the clause...

• Dan: when it's left it could be topicalization

• W: that's likely, but doesn't help me much

• Dag: the part starting with kai is sentence final right?

• W: yes, especially when it's short

• Dag: your translation is quite accurate, e.g. the complementizer is translated as a colon, which is quite accurate

• W: In all these examples you could say things go all the way to the right of the clause

• Guy: couldn't the second conjunct be extraposed?

• Dag: yeah you could argue that

• Dan: if extraposition, do you have a syntactic of morphsyntactic thing, or is it anaphora; that would be the lazier and easier option

• John: do conjuncts have to be the same type?

• W: they have to agree with each other generally

• Dag: you could coordinate them continuously too

• Dan: then we can't just wave our hands about constituency, if there's agreement requirements on coordinands then we need to do something syntactic

• Guy: if it's anaphora you could also predict it to go even further away

• W: yeah, and they do stay pretty close, but if they cross sentence boundaries then my search would not have found them

• Dan: but imagine in that context you say "Paul said he liked to eat fish. Andrew added, 'and bread'"

• Guy: but that's quoted speech

• Dan: so what? I still want a semantic representation of it

• W: you could say "John likes somebody. Andrew said 'yes, himself.'"

• Berthold: can you have two dependents overlapping coordination, like interleaved A1 B1 A2 B2?

• W: I tried thinking of that the other day, I think it could happen

• Dan: ...

• Dag: you need a closest conjunct theory; the alternative would be a gapping analysis

• Dan: one of the predictions of extraposition is that you'd expect plural marking on the follow (Matthew 9:19 example)

• EMB: we'll need a rule for the bottom of the extraposition dep., and say agreement comes from ... Laurie Dermer has an analysis of ...

• BC: this is dealing with traces then?

• Dan: I wasn't thinking that; if you'd say "Jesus and the disciples followed him", it'd be plural

• Dag: if it was "the disciples and Jesus", you'd expect singular

• Dan: we could go with the prettier analysis or the one that gets us what we want

• Dan: in English we could add afterthoughts, "John likes tartar sauce on his fish.. And Mary"

• EMB: those are at the end of the utterance, where these are embedded in the sentence

• BC: in German we have similar

• Dan: and with quirky case you'd get this?

• BC: i think so

• Dan: a scary thought w/ extraposition is you have to launch candidate sites from every noun phrases

• BC: do you want to have multiple dependencies or not?

• Dan: how do you do those?

• W: you have to have multiple sites at all times?

• BC: yes but they mostly go unused; maybe have a recency model...

• W: predict you can only do these on the closest, or outermost, etc.

• BC: you can have several rules for, e.g., nearest attachment, second nearest, etc... unlikely to have, e.g., 5 removed

• BC: look at Tibor Kiss's (NLT 2002?) analysis, for German, ... you want to key them to case, etc.

• Dan: coordinated adpositional phrases?

• W: I think so, but I can't say for sure

• Dan: if you could argue it's semantically empty, you could say that you need the syntax

• EMB: I wonder if about Petter's approach is relevant

• Petter: ...

• W: you need not just the index but the place it was talked about...

• P: I don't do coordination well, this is a problem. I grab the first argument, but i don't know how many more there are

• Dan: ...

• EMB: but this isn't just arguments but also predicates

• Dan: the tall and angry cat is not so different from the tall angry cat or the tall cat which is angry

• Guy: verbs?

• W: yeah, but it's hard to search for these

• Dan: is this like "paul bought and sold a goat"? Why is that hard to find?

• W: I can't just look at the individual words, I have to look at the whole phrase, e.g. the arguments of all the verbs, etc...

• Dag: and you can pro-drop objects and subjects, which complicates things

• W: in this case (1st Timothy 1:15), it was found by ...

• Dan: so maybe there's not a uniform solution for all cases...

• Guy: maybe you just need to extrapose just noun phrases?

• W: and live with pro-dropped anaphora for the other ones?

• Dan: do you have examples in a control structure (Paul persuaded the gentiles to leave and hebrews)

• W: i did not notice any

• Dag: it wouldn't be too surprising

• Guy: attributive adjectives?

• W: yes, but Dag says this (Acts 13:16) isn't an example

• Dag: well it's not attributive, it's like a free relative

• Dan: or depictive

• EMB: so the grace and peace example, it's not the modifier that's distributed?

• W: correct

• Dan: for the extraposition story, if you're parsing bottom-up, you expose the morphosyntactic properties in some growing list, then when you find a conjunct, you choose one on the list that agrees, so you're not exploding the number of edges

• W: but you need a reorder/shuffle operator?

• Dan: just have a popping rule that removes things on the list until it finds one

• W: but that increases number of edges

• Guy: is it expensive to put it on the slash list?

• Dan: it won't pack, because one has slash, one doesn't

• BC: how often can you do this? Can you have tripartite coordination with things spread all over?

• W: probably

• BC: that will kill slash, because things need to stay on slash while you're popping them off...

• Dan: John ate fish and Mary and bread

• Dag: I don't think that will happen

• W: actually that sounds like one i found that crossed in some way

• W: the summary: some kind of extraposition keeping track of some kind of anchors

• Dan: rich enough to keep some case information

• BC: like an accusative list, etc..

• Dan: only if you're just doing noun phrases

• W: yes, so some extraposition for noun phrases, throw in the towel with anaphora for other cases

• EMB: but you're gonna get that anyway for ...

• W: Revelations 18:24, we get this too?

• Dan: we get some ambiguity here, do you launch the anchor of prophets, or saints, or all?

• EMB: ...

• BC: question for Dan, how to handle "faithful is the word and worthy of acceptance"

• Dan: i think that's a depictive marked with an and, "Worthy of acceptance, faithful is the word"

• Guy: that sounds like an awkward translations trying to stick close to the greek

• ...