possible inconsistency regarding prepositions

[offthepiste]

have been parsing the following using v 1.3.0:

1. buildings (including elevator and stairs).
2. buildings (excluding elevator and stairs).

I had assumed I would obtain the same type of dependencies based upon a proposition.

For 1. the noun 'elevator' is a nmod dependent of noun 'buildings' and the verb 'including' is a case dependent of noun 'elevator'.
For 2. the noun 'elevator' is a appos dependent of noun 'buildings' and the noun 'elevator' is a obj dependent of verb 'excluding'.
I had naively assumed they would have the same types of dependencies. The parse results do not seem correct, however warning ... I am a newbie.

Cheers

[AngledLuffa]

The difference here is that "including" shows up approximately 37000 times in the training data. Literally every sentence has it at least once, sometimes twice. "excluding" shows up exactly one time, in the following context: Senior officials have been quoted in the press as saying that the searches were for the purpose of excluding him as much as including him. so the models are going to do a much better job of analyzing "including" than "excluding". One possibility here is to add a few more sentences that represent "excluding", possibly even just by replacing one word with the other.

…

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 7:07 AM offthepiste ***@***.***> wrote: have been parsing the following using v 1.3.0: 1. buildings (including elevator and stairs) 2. buildings (excluding elevator and stairs) I had assumed I would obtain the same type of dependencies based upon a proposition. For 1. the noun 'elevator' is a *nmod* dependent of noun 'buildings' and the verb 'including' is a *case* dependent of noun 'elevator'. For 2. the noun 'elevator' is a *appos* dependent of noun 'buildings' and the noun 'elevator' is a *obj* dependent of verb 'excluding'. I had naively assumed they would have the same types of dependencies. The parse results do not seem correct, however warning ... I am a newbie. Cheers — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1058>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA2AYWJCPXPLQWRDOIFRXZ3VQW6K7ANCNFSM5ZX7AKSQ> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[offthepiste]

Hi John, thank you for your prompt reply. Cheers Stephen

PS: Appreciate that you may be more focused on code but do you get involved with / influence Universal Dependencies and the Dependency Theory that I understand underpins it? Obviously lots of schools of thought but I thinking of hanging my hat on the work of Richard Hudson. Cheers

[AngledLuffa]

Yeah, I contributed some to the UD project (and still do), but mostly in situations where writing automatic tools can help

…

On Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 2:17 AM offthepiste ***@***.***> wrote: Hi John, thank you for your prompt reply. Cheers Stephen PS: Appreciate that you may be more focused on code but do you get involved with / influence Universal Dependencies and the Dependency Theory that I understand underpins it? Obviously lots of schools of thought but I thinking of hanging my hat on the work of Richard Hudson. Cheers — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1058 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA2AYWNO6NGDXDKAITRNVETVQ3FBLANCNFSM5ZX7AKSQ> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>