You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Standardly, it is just "we/us" and "you" that do this, though dialectal variants are possible like "keep them lovely kebabs coming" (EWT).
Arguably, "we/you" are acting as determiners, making the nominal definite and adding person features. (This is the CGEL analysis.) EWT follows this analysis: EWT PRON-as-det
But this is rare, and annotators/users might be surprised to see (what look like) pronouns in det position.
GUM has dep(guys, you).
The MNCs paper suggests nmod:desc.
Some other related things:
you idiot, you absolute fool, etc. (singular noun but I don't think these can be subjects) (Twitter discussion)
dep in GUM is intentional and generally applies as a placeholder for things we wanted to be nmod:desc (until whenever we decide to implement that, if we do)
I can't find an issue for this, though it came up in the Mischievous Nominals paper - example (5):
Standardly, it is just "we/us" and "you" that do this, though dialectal variants are possible like "keep them lovely kebabs coming" (EWT).
Arguably, "we/you" are acting as determiners, making the nominal definite and adding person features. (This is the CGEL analysis.) EWT follows this analysis: EWT PRON-as-
det
But this is rare, and annotators/users might be surprised to see (what look like) pronouns in
det
position.GUM has
dep(guys, you)
.The MNCs paper suggests
nmod:desc
.Some other related things:
det(you, all)
. EWT PRON-headeddet
nummod
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: