A Wordnet from the Ground Up

68 Chapter 3. Discovering Semantic Relatednessor(and(llook(-1,-5,$A,and( in(flex[$A],{adj,pact,ppas}),inter(base[$A],{"particular base form "}),agrpp(0,$A,{nmb,gnd,cas},3))),or(only($A,-1,$Ad, in(flex[$Ad],{adjectival and adverbial grammatical classes,numerals and punctuation })),and(in(cas[0],nom,acc,dat,loc,inst,voc),there is no other verb then "być" between -1 and $A positionsnot(llook(-1,$A,$S,and(in(flex[$S], {nominal grammatical classes }),in(cas[$S],{nom,acc,dat,loc,inst,voc}),not( llook($S,$A,$P,equal(flex[$P],{prep})) ))))))),a symmetrical condition for the right context)Figure 3.5: Parts of a lexico-morphosyntactic constraint which describes nominal LUs via adjectivalmodification (AdjC)• flex returns a grammatical class 12 of the specified token,• adj, pact, ppas are mnemonics for grammatical classes of adjective and twoadjectival participles,• agrpp(0,$A,nmb,gnd,cas,3) is an operator that tests agreement between twospecified positions and according to the given list of grammatical categories 13 .After the lexical element A has been found and its position stored in $A, we need totest if no tokens between N and A make the modification of N by A impossible. Forexample, A may belong to a different noun phrase than N, so agreement is accidental.In the following steps of the constraint AdjC, then, we test two situations that validatethe modification:12 In the tagset of IPIC (Przepiórkowski, 2004), word forms are divided into 32 grammatical class,a division more fine-grained than parts of speech; this is motivated largely by morphological, derivationaland syntactic properties of word forms.13 The last parameter has a technical meaning for more advance uses of agrpp. It describes the numberof categories.