Sylvain Kahane also had an example of parataxis but that one turned out to be unproblematic (see below) because the parent node, although tagged DET, is not annotated syntactically as a det but reparandum.
+flat:redup in Latin treebanks. One example is quot quot from quot: while the latter means ‘as many as’, the reduplication has a distributive sense as in ‘for each possible one…’ (this expression is sometimes even univerbated). I think to annotate them separately, each depending on the head, is not the right way to deal with them: here we do not have two or more different terms, but really the same one “clonating” itself. On the other hand, flat is really the closest relation we have to fixed, which would cause no problem, but is not a correct choice (well, in my opinion it is never the correct choice)
+ Can we deactivate the validation rule if the child of det is a flat relation?
Dan: Why is fixed not a good choice? +Flavio: Because it is productive and not idiosyncratic.
+A large part of the discussion slipped to the related problem of deciding between det and nmod (or their :poss subtypes). Joakim believes that the guidelines imply, despite not saying it explicitly, that if the word is referential, it should be attached as nmod rather than det. It would be the case of all words referring to possessors, regardless whether they are tagged as PRON, DET, NOUN or ADJ. But other people (including Dan) do not understand the guidelines this way.
flat:redup in Latin treebanks. One example is quot quot from quot: while the latter means ‘as many as’, the reduplication has a distributive sense as in ‘for each possible one…’ (this expression is sometimes even univerbated). I think to annotate them separately, each depending on the head, is not the right way to deal with them: here we do not have two or more different terms, but really the same one “clonating” itself. On the other hand, flat is really the closest relation we have to fixed, which would cause no problem, but is not a correct choice (well, in my opinion it is never the correct choice)
- Can we deactivate the validation rule if the child of det is a flat relation?
Dan: Why is fixed not a good choice? I think it is the right choice here.
-In Classical Chinese 彼此兵 “those and these soldiers” is invalidated by this rule. The English translation has coordinate determiners but there is no coordinating conjunction in the original and 彼此 “that this” are connected via flat. Then “that” is attached as det to “soldier”.
-Flavio (and Dan): Here the simplest solution would be to use conj instead of flat.
+Flavio (and Dan): Here the simplest solution would be to use conj instead of flat. (But in the end, flat may be allowed because of other things, namely reduplication of function words.