Timeline for How order of the syntax tree is formally/strictly proven?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2020 at 12:31 | history | edited | qdinar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
the "hacks" are for constituencies, not whole trees; some little edition like stylistic.
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 13:41 | history | edited | qdinar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
request for statistics
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 12:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackLinguist/status/1322146247491391488 | ||
| Oct 29, 2020 at 23:50 | comment | added | Atamiri | Several constituency tests have been devised for English (and other languages). For example, if a phrase (subsequence) can be moved around, it’s likely a constituent. You can say e.g. “the ball John hit” or “the ball, John hit it” which indicates that the NP is a constituent. Things get more complicated in languages with freer word order. Generally constituency tests are material implications, that is, if a test fails it doesn’t mean that the tested phrase isn’t a constituent. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 22:20 | answer | added | purlupar | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 16:56 | comment | added | qdinar | @Draconis i did not read about such thing. thank you. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 16:55 | history | edited | qdinar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
capitalise, quote
|
| Oct 29, 2020 at 16:55 | comment | added | Draconis♦ | Have you been introduced to "constituency tests" before? | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 16:49 | history | asked | qdinar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |