Written by: Seth Kirkland
Transcribed by: Eric Aasen
With Help from: Darcy Partridge
Episodes Orginally Transcribed by: guineapig,
Ruth Curran, Mindy Mattingly Phillips, Josh
Hodge, Dan Silverstein, and Eric Aasen.
[Scene: Central Perk, Joey and Chandler are sitting and talking.]
Chandler: Yknow what? It seems like all of the sudden; so much has happened.
Joey: I know. Ross is getting married.
Chandler: Phoebe is, making people.
Joey: Everybodys doing stuff!
Chandler: And we just sit here.  Look, we have to do something. Okay? Something huge!
Joey: (snaps his fingers) We could climb Mt. Everest!

Joey: No-no-no-no-no, I saw an ad for this video, people climb that thing everyday! We could totally do that!
Chandler: Why not?! I mean its just, its just climbing! Its just, its just steep!
Joey: Yeah!
Chandler: Were going to Everest!
Phoebe: (entering) Hey!
Joey: Hey!
Phoebe: What-whats up?
Joey: Were gonna climb Mt. Everest!
Chandler: Yeah baby!
Phoebe: Really?! I looked into that.
Chandler: (dejected) Yeah, well
Joey: We could get that Everest video though.
Chandler: Yeah, we could do that without yknow risking our lives at all!
Joey: And while were down at the video store, you know what else we could rent? Die Hard! (Chandlers excited.) Oh, yknow what? I just remembered, that Everest thing is only available through mail order.
Chandler: (dejected) Oh, well
Phoebe: So you guysll stay here and hang out with me?
Chandler: Yeeeeahhhh.
Joey: Yeah. Yeah.
Chandler: But Ill tell you something. One of these days were get off of our buts and rent Die Hard again!
Joey: Yeah we are!
Opening Credits
[Scene: Rosss apartment, he and Emily are addressing their invitations.]
Emily: So what did he decide? Does your Uncle Nathan get an invite or not?
Ross: Ohh, God, nobody likes him, and hes so cheap, hed never fly to London in a million years. Yeah, invite him? Hey, did I do these neat enough? (Hands her some envelopes.)
Emily: Yeah, theyre fine.
Ross: Yeah?
Emily: If anyone asks, well just say Ben addressed them. (Looking through the envelopes.) Oh! So you invited Rachel then?
Ross: Sure. Why not?
Emily: Really?
Ross: Yeah?
Emily: I dont think Id be comfortable with any of my old lovers there.
Ross: Wait-wait-wait, do you, do you think, maybe we shouldnt invite her?
Emily: Oh, no-no, yknow I absolutely adore Rachel its just that, well it might be a awkward for you. But its absolutely your decision. (Gets up.) More tea?
Ross: Yeah sure.
Emily: Earl Grey?
Ross: Huh? Yeah, fine, invite whoever you want.
[And with that we start off on a series of clips from the entire history of Ross and Rachel, from Rosss point of view. The first clip is from The Pilot.]
[Scene: Central Perk, Ross is complaining about Carol.]
Ross: I don't want to be single, okay? I just... I just- I just wanna be married again!
(A woman enters wearing a wet wedding dress and frantically starts to look around.)
Chandler: And I just want a million dollars! (He extends his hand hopefully.)
Monica: Rachel?!
Rachel: Oh God Monica hi! I just went to your building and you weren't there and then this guy with a big hammer said you might be here and you are, you are!
[cut to later]
Monica: Okay, everybody, this is Rachel, another Lincoln High survivor. (To Rachel) This is everybody, this is Chandler, and Phoebe, and Joey, and- you remember my brother Ross?
Rachel: Hi, sure!
Ross: Hi.
(They go to hug but Ross' umbrella opens. He sits, defeated again.)
[cut to later]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Ross and Rachel are finishing up some cookies.]
Ross: You know you probably didn't know this, but back in high school, I had a, um, major crush on you.
Rachel: I knew.
Ross: You did! Oh.... I always figured you just thought I was Monica's geeky older brother.
Rachel: I did.
Ross: Oh. Listen, do you think- and try not to let my intense vulnerability become any kind of a factor herebut do you think it would be okay if I asked you out? Sometime? Maybe?
Rachel: Yeah, maybe...
Ross: Okay... okay, maybe I will...
[The next clip is from The One With The Blackout.]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Ross and Rachel are talking about passion.]
Ross: See, I see.... big passion in your future.
Rachel: Really?
Ross: I do.

Joey: It's never gonna happen.
[cut to later]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's balcony, Ross is about to be attacked by Paulo's cat.]
Ross: Hey, I have a question. Well, actually, it's not so much a question as.. more of a general wondering... ment.
Rachel: Okay.
Ross: Okay. Umm, for a while now, I've been wanting to, um....
Rachel: Ohhh!!!! [looking at something behind Ross]
Ross: Yes, yes, that's right...
Rachel: Oh, look at the little cat! [a small kitten is on the roof behind Ross] Look at it!
Ross: What? [the cat jumps on his shoulders] Ow!
[Cut to inside, Monica, Joey and Phoebe are singing while outside, Ross and Rachel are trying to get the cat off of Ross' shoulder.]
Monica, Joey, and Phoebe: [singing] I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation and the only explanation I can find...
[The next clip is from The One With The East German Laundry Detergent.]
[Scene: The Laundromat, Rachel is fighting with that old, annoying woman for a cart.]
Rachel: All right, listen, missy. If you want this cart, you're gonna have to take me with it!
(She thinks it over, and then walks away.)
Rachel: (to Ross) Yes! Did you see that?
Ross: You were incredible! Brand new woman, ladies and gentlemen.
Rachel: I could not have done this without you.
(Rachel stands up and kisses Ross. He is stunned. A moment of silence follows.)
Ross: Ok, um, uh, more clothes in the dryer? (Ross turns and bangs his head on an open dryer door.) I'm fine, I'm fine.
[The next clip is from The One Where Ross Finds Out]
[Scene: Central Perk, I'm sure you've guessed, it's the famous fight scene between Ross and Rachel.]
Ross: You had no right to tell me you ever had feelings for me.
Rachel: (hurt) What?
Ross: I was doing great with Julie before I found out about you.
Rachel: Hey, I was doin' great before I found out about you. You think it's easy for me to see you with Julie?
[cut to later]
Ross: The point is I... I don't need this right now, OK. It, it's too late, I'm with somebody else, I'm happy. This ship has sailed.
[cut to later]
Rachel: Alright, fine, you go ahead and you do that, alright Ross.
Ross: Fine.

Ross: Good.
Rachel: Good. (Ross leaves)
[cut to later]
(Rachel slams the door and locks it. She sits down, visibly upset.  Ross comes back and is standing outside the window. When Rachel regroups and gets back up to finish closing, she sees him.)
[cut to later]
(She opens the door and they kiss.)
[The next clip is the second famous fight in The One Where Ross and Rachel Take A Break.]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Ross and Rachel are arguing.]
Rachel: Ross do you realise this is the first time in my life Im doing something I actually care about. This is the first time in my life Im doing something that Im actually good at. I mean. if you dont get that...
Ross: No, hey, I get that, okay, I get that big time. And Im happy for ya, but Im tired of having a relationship with your answering machine! Okay, I dont know what to do anymore.
Rachel: Well neither do I!
Ross: Is this about Mark?
Rachel: (shocked) Oh my God.
Ross: Okay, its not, its not.
Rachel: Oh my God. I cannot keep having this same fight over and over again, Ross, no, youre, youre, youre making this too hard.
Ross: Oh Im, Im making this too hard. Okay, what do you want me to do.
Rachel: I dont know, I dont know. Urrrgh! Look, maybe we should take a break.
Ross: Okay, okay, fine, youre right. Lets ah, lets take a break, (goes to the door) lets cool off, okay, lets get some frozen yogart, or something.. (opens the door)
Rachel: No. (Ross is standing in the doorway.) A break from us.
(Ross looks at her, then leaves slamming the door behind him.)
[The next clip is from The One The Morning After]
[Scene: Ross's apartment, Ross is hurrying Chloe out the door.]
Chloe: Do I know why were rushing?
Ross: Yeah, y'know the ah, the girlfriend I told you about last night? (Hes frantically throwing the cushions off of the couch looking for her other shoe) Well it turns out she ah, she wants to get back together with me. Oh, I found it!!
Chloe: Thats so great for you guys!
Ross: Yeah!
[cut to later]
Chloe: Good luck, with your girlfriend.
Ross: Oh, thank you. (She goes to kiss him, but he holds her coat up between their faces to stop her.) Hey, hey. (opens the door, sees Rachel, and hides Chloe behind the door) Rachel!!!!
Rachel: Hi. Ohhh, you got my message.
Ross: Yeah, oh hey, you are right on time.
Rachel: So what do you say? Can I be your girlfriend again?
Ross: Yes, you can, very much.
(Chloe gives Ross the thumbs up while still standing behind the door.)
Ross: (seeing the thumbs up) Ahhhh!! (Hugs Rachel tighter.)
[cut to later]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Rachel has just found out about Chloe and is screaming at Ross. The rest of the gang is trapped in Monica's bedroom.]
Rachel: (opening the door) Y'know what, I want you to leave! Get outta here!
Ross: No!!
Rachel: Just get out! Now!!
Ross: No!! No!! I wanna stay. I wanna talk about this.
Rachel: Okay! All right! How was she?
[Cut to Monica's bedroom]
Chandler: Uh-oh.
[Cut to Living Room]
Ross: What?
Rachel: Was she good?
[Cut to Monica's bedroom]
Joey: Dont answer that.
[Cut to Living Room]
Rachel: Come on Ross! You said you wanted to talk about it, lets talk about it!! How was she?
Ross: She was...
[Cut to Monica's bedroom]
Joey: Awful! Horrible!
Chandler: She was not good. Not good.
Joey: She was nothing compared to you.
[Cut to Living Room]
Ross: She, she was different.
[Cut to Monica's bedroom]
Joey: Ewwwww!
Chandler: Uh-oh.
[Cut to Living Room]
Rachel: Good different?
Ross: Nobody likes change.
(Rachel picks up a newspaper and starts beating him with it.)
Ross: What? Okay, okay, okay, okay.
[The next clip is from The One With The Jellyfish.]
[Scene: Rachel's bedroom, Rachel, entering selfish mode, is thanking Ross for wrongly taking the entire blame of the breakup; as if she had absolutely nothing to do with it.]
Rachel: ...the way you owned up to everything, it just showed me how much youve grown. Y'know? I mean my Mom never thought this would work out. It was all, Once a cheater, always a cheater. Ooh, I just wish we hadnt lost those four months, but if time was what you needed just to gain a little perspective...
Ross: WE WERE ON A BREAK!!!!!!!
[Cut back to the present.]
[Scene: A mailbox, Ross is mailing the invitations. He throws a bunch into the mailbox, but pauses with Rachel's. And it starts another round of clips.]
[The One With The Fake Party]
[Scene: The hallway, Rachel is convincing Ross that Emily is good for him.]
Rachel: You seem to really like her.
Ross: Yeah, I really do. Yeah, but what am I gonna do, I mean we-we both agreed that it was gonna be a two-week thing, yknow no commitment.
Rachel: Ross, that girl just spent the entire evening talking to your friends, asking to hear stories about you, looking through Monicas photo albums, I mean you dont do that if youre just in it for two weeks.
Ross: You think?

Ross: Hey, youre right.
Rachel: Yeah.
[Cut back to the present, Ross is still looking at Rachel's invitation. Finally, he makes up his mind and mails it.]
Commercial Break
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Joey, Monica, and Phoebe are opening their invitations.]
Monica: Ohh, this is soo amazing! I cant believe my brothers getting married! And in London! Its so romantic!
Joey: (taking apart the invitation) Hey, pretty smart! Tissue paper! Youre at the wedding, you have to cry, "Handkerchief?" "No-no, I got my invitation."
Phoebe: Oooh look! Isnt this adorable, Ross let Ben address mine!
Chandler: (entering) Hello!
Joey: Hey!
Monica: Hey!
Phoebe: Hey! Hey, did you get your invitation to Rosss wedding?
Chandler: (sarcastic) Noo.
Joey: Dont worry man, I get to bring a guest. Well show him.
 I cant believe I never knew that you cant fly in your third trimester!
Chandler: I didnt know that.
Monica: I never knew that either.
Joey: I knew that! (They all look at him) I sooo didnt know that, but you should see your faces.
Rachel: (entering) Hey guys! Whats up?
Joey: Heyyy. (They all try and hide their invitations.)
Monica: Were hanging out.
(Rachel starts going through her mail, and come across her invitation.)
Rachel: Whats this? Is this Rosss wedding invitation?
Chandler: See, maybe thats the one we shouldve actually hidden.
Rachel: Oh, no! No you guys! Come on, you dont have to do that! Im happy for him! I am! I reallyIm-Im happIll work on it.
Monica: Im sorry honey.
Rachel: Yeah.
Monica: Rach, youre gonna come though arent you?
Rachel: Oh, honey, I dont know. I
Chandler: This isnt one of those uh, yknow "If she doesnt come, we-we dont, we dont come?" Right? Because I already bought my ticket
Monica: You know what would be real weird? Is if you werent there. Just say youll think about it, okay?
Rachel: No, Ill think about it. Yeah.
[And with that, we go into another set of clips, this time from Rachels point of view.]
[The first clip is from The One Where Rachel Finds Out.]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, it's Rachel birthday party and Chandler is about to spill the beans.]
Rachel: Who's this from?
Chandler: Oh, that's Ross's.
Rachel: Oh... (opens it and sees it is a pin) Oh my God. He remembered.
Phoebe: Remembered what?
Rachel: It was like months ago. We were walking by this antique store, and I saw this pin in the window, and I told him that it was just like one my grandmother had when I was a little girl. Oh! I can't believe he remembered!
Phoebe: Oh, it's so pretty. This must have cost him a fortune.
Monica: I can't believe he did this.
 Remember back in college, when he fell in love with Carol and bought her that ridiculously expensive crystal duck?
(Everyone looks at him. He realizes he just spilled the beans about Ross's crush on Rachel.)
Rachel: What did you just say?
Chandler: (stuttering incoherently) F-hah.... flennin....
Rachel: Oh.... my God.
[The next clip is from The One With Ross's New Girlfriend.]
[Scene: The airport, Ross is about to walk off of the plane with Julie.]
Rachel: (seeing Ross come off the plane with another woman.) Oh my God.
[cut to later]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Ross is introducing Julie to the gang.]
Julie: Well, Ross and I were in grad school together.
Ross: But we haven't seen each other since then. Well I land in China, guess who's in charge of the dig.
Rachel: Julie! Julie, isn't that great? I mean, isn't that just kick- you-in-the-crotch, spit-on-your-neck fantastic?
[cut to later]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Ross is trying to hang up on Julie.]
Ross: Oh, that is so sweet.(listens) No, no, ok, you hang up. Ok, ok, one, two, three.(He doesn't hang up and motions for Rachel to be quiet.) Well you didn't hang up either.
Rachel: She didn't hang up either...
Ross: Ok, no, no, you hang up. You, you, y(Rachel grabs the phone and hangs it up for him.)
[The next clip is from The One Where Ross Finds Out.]
[Scene, A Restaurant, Rachel is on her date, drunk, and is leaving that answering machine message.]
Rachel: (on phone) Ross, hi, it's Rachel. I'm just calling to say that um, everything's fine and I'm really happy for you and your cat...(cut)...I am over you. I am over you and that, my friend, is what they call closure. (She hangs up and tosses phone in the ice bucket.)
[cut to later]
[Scene, Monica and Rachel's, the next morning, Ross is checking his messages.]
Ross: Rach, I got a message from you.
(Rachel comes out of her room, suddenly she remembers leaving the message.)
Rachel: Oh my God. Oh my God Ross, no, hang up the phone, give me the phone Ross, give me the phone, give me the phone, give me the. . . (She jumps the couch and lands on Ross's back, finally getting the phone from him. Ross has a confused expression on his face.)
Ross: You're over me?
Rachel: Ohhhhhhhh God. (climbs off his back)
Ross: Wha... you're uh, you're, you're over me?
Rachel: Ohh, ohh.
Ross: When, when were you... under me?
Rachel: Well, basically, lately, I've uh, I've uh, sort of had feelings for you.
[cut to later in the same scene]
Ross: OK, I need to lie down.
[The next clip is from The One With The List.]
[Scene: Chandler and Joey's, Ross has just broken up with Julie and is about to get with Rachel.]
Joey: He broke up with Julie. Well, go hug her, for god's sakes.
Rachel: Really?
Ross: Really. It's always been you, Rach.
Rachel: Oh, god.
(Ross and Rachel hug.)
Chandler and Joey: Ohhh.
[The next clip is from The One Where Ross and Rachel.... You Know.]
[Scene: The Auditorium, Ross and Rachel are about to... you know.]
Ross: I've no idea, could be. Listen, I'm sorry I had to work tonight.
Rachel: Oh it's OK. You were worth the wait, and I don't just mean tonight.
(They kiss and start undressing. As Rachel tries to pull off Ross's tie she catches it in his mouth. Then they roll across the fur rug.)
Rachel: Ah, oh God. Oh, honey, oh that's OK.
Ross: What. Oh no, you just rolled over the juice box.
[The next clip is from The One The Morning After.]
[Scene: Central Perk, Ross is trying to prevent Gunther from spilling the beans.]
Ross: Gunther! Gunther. Gunther, please tell me you didnt say anything to Rachel about me and the girl from the Xerox place.
Gunther: Im sorry. Was I not supposed to?
(Ross turns around and sees Rachel sitting by the window. She is just glaring at him.)
[The next clip is from The One At The Beach.]
[Scene: The beachhouse, Ross and Rachel are argueing about the breakup.]
Ross: Y'know, hey! Youre the one who ended it, remember?

Ross: You still love me?
Rachel: Noo.
[cut to later]
Ross: What does this mean?
Rachel: Noo! Maybe! I, I dont know.
Ross: What?!
Rachel: I just, I feel, I-I just...
(Ross leans in and kisses her. They both look at each other for a moment, and then embrace in a more passionate kiss.)
[The next clip is from The One With The Jellyfish.]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Rachel and Ross are finally breaking up for good, or is it?]
Rachel: Y'know I cant believe I even thought about getting back together again! We are so over!!
Ross: (starts to cry) FINE BY ME!! (he opens the door and traps Chandler behind it)
[cut to later]
Rachel: And hey! Just so you know, its not that common! It doesnt happen to every guy! And it is a big deal!!
Chandler: I KNEW IT!!!!
[cut back to the present.]
[Scene: Central Perk, Rachel is deciding on whether or not to go to the wedding.]
[cut to another clip, this one is from The One With The Prom Video]
[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, the gang is watching the Prom Video and Rachel is about to make her entrance on the video. The italics are portions of the prom video.]
Mrs. Geller: Rachel's coming up the path. Doesn't she look pretty. Jack... (Rachel enters with a huge nose)
Monica: You know what this is, this is us getting ready for the prom.
Rachel: Oh.
Ross: You know what, you guys, we don't have to watch this.
All: Oh yeah we do. C'mon.
Mrs. Geller: Get a shot of Monica. Where's Monica.
Mr. Geller: Wait, how do you zoom out? (zooms out and we see an extremely overweight Monica eating a big sandwich) There she is.

 Right Ross? (pans over to see Ross with an afro and moustache)
Joey: Lookin' good Mr. Cotter.
[cut to later]
Rachel: I can't go to my own prom without a date, I can't, it's too late.
Monica: If you're not going then I don't want to go either.
Mrs. Geller: (to Ross on the stairs) I have a wonderful idea. You should take Rachel to the prom.
[cut to later]
Ross: Y'know what? I think we've seen enough, let's turn it off.
All: No, no, no.
Ross: OK, fine, well I'm not gonna watch, alright.
Mr. Geller: C'mon kid, let's go.
Mrs. Geller: Ahh, are you hadsome.
Mr. Geller: Let's show 'em.
Ross: (walks down the stairs and grabs the flowers out of the vase on the endtable) Okay dad.
Mr. Geller: (going downstairs) Rachel, ready or not, here comes your knight in shiningOh no. (Chip has shown up and the four are leaving.)
Rachel, Monica, Roy, and Chip: Bye.
Mrs. Geller: Oh, dear. Jack, how do I turn this off?
Monica: (to Ross) I can't believe you did that.
Ross: Yeah, well.
[Rachel, seeing what he did for her, gets up, walks across the room, and kisses Ross]
Phoebe: See, he's her lobster.
[Cut back to the present, Rachel has made her decision.]
Monica: (seeing the decision) Nooooo. Youre really not going?
Rachel: Yeah. Its just gonna be too hard. Yknow? I mean, its Ross. How can I watch him get married? Yknow its just, its for the best, yknow it is, its Yknow, plus, somebodys got to stay here with Phoebe! Yknow shes gonna be pretty big by then, and she needs someone to help her tie her shoes; drive her to the hospital in case she goes into labour.
Monica: You dont have a car. And your license expired.
Rachel: I know. (Starts to cry) Yeah, see, theres so much to do and I have so little time to do it in.
Closing Credits
[Scene: Central Perk, Chandler, Joey, and Phoebe are reading a book about things to do whilst in London.]
Chandler: All right, check it out. Check this out. It says here that theres a place you can go to rent videos of all the museums! (Reading from the book.) "Its almost as good as being there."
Joey: Its better!
Chandler: Well, You could, but... probably just the one time.
Joey: I bet we could get videos of all the sites, get a VCR in our hotel room... we'd never even have to go outside!
Chandler: If we do that, we gotta get Die Hard.
Joey: Oh-ho! I bet the British version is gooooood!
End


Cloud Asset V1 API - Enum PartitionSpec.Types.PartitionKey (2.9.0)
public enum PartitionKey
Reference documentation and code samples for the Cloud Asset V1 API enum PartitionSpec.Types.PartitionKey.
This enum is used to determine the partition key column when exporting assets to BigQuery partitioned table(s). Note that, if the partition key is a timestamp column, the actual partition is based on its date value (expressed in UTC. see details in https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/partitioned-tables#date_timestamp_partitioned_tables).
Namespace
Google.Cloud.Asset.V1Assembly
Google.Cloud.Asset.V1.dll
Fields
| Name | Description |
| ReadTime | The time when the snapshot is taken. If specified as partition key, the result table(s) is partitoned by the additional timestamp column, readTime. If [read_time] in ExportAssetsRequest is specified, the readTime column's value will be the same as it. Otherwise, its value will be the current time that is used to take the snapshot. |
| RequestTime | The time when the request is received and started to be processed. If specified as partition key, the result table(s) is partitoned by the requestTime column, an additional timestamp column representing when the request was received. |
| Unspecified | Unspecified partition key. If used, it means using non-partitioned table. |


Hood Certified is a Collective of 2 artists from Oakland california. Their main goal is to make quality art from real oakland culture. We are trying to keep the culture of our art alive.
A lot of the art behind Hood Certified has derived from the struggle and pains of growing up in east oakland but also the greatness that comes out of it.
Now Hood Certified Makes community art and has a pop up shop that is showing up to community events


Sorts and waits as needed.
Deploys dependencies first (like CRDs and Namespaces) and supports custom change ordering. Waits for resources to "reconcile."
--- title: "" ---
Deploy and view groups of Kubernetes resources as "applications". Apply changes safely and pgreenictably, watching resources as they converge.
kapp is a CLI that does not require server-side components, elevated privileges nor any custom resources. It works well in RBAC-constrained clusters.
kapp calculates changes between your configuration and live cluster state (a set of create, update, and delete operations) and applies changes you approve. It reports how resources are converging to their desired state providing insight into progress of the deployment.
kapp orders certain resources (e.g. CRDs and Namespaces are installed before the resources that need them). Add your own rules to declare dependencies (e.g. a Job running DB migrations must finish before the Deployment is updated).
Deploys dependencies first (like CRDs and Namespaces) and supports custom change ordering. Waits for resources to "reconcile."
Focuses exclusively on deployment procedure and works equally well with configuration tools such as ytt, kustomize, helm template, and any other tool that can produce standard Kubernetes YAML configuration.
Include in your GitOps flow via CLI command or kapp-controller
You can follow along in Katacoda Kubernetes playground while going through below workflow. To set up playground:
And now onto using kapp:
In this example, we are installing example app from kapp repository.
Changes summary shows that all resources are new.
{{< highlight bash "" >}} $ kapp deploy -a app1 -f examples/simple-app-example/config-1.yml Target cluster 'https://x.x.x.x' (nodes: gke-dk-jan-9-pool-1-d01bcd06-bgie, 4+) Changes Namespace Name Kind Conds. Age Op Op st. Wait to Rs Ri default simple-app Deployment - - create - reconcile - - ^ simple-app Service - - create - reconcile - - Op: 2 create, 0 delete, 0 update, 0 noop Wait to: 2 reconcile, 0 delete, 0 noop 2:12:59PM: ---- applying 2 changes [0/2 done] ---- 2:13:00PM: create service/simple-app (v1) namespace: default 2:13:01PM: create deployment/simple-app (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:13:01PM: ---- waiting on 2 changes [0/2 done] ---- 2:13:01PM: ok: reconcile service/simple-app (v1) namespace: default 2:13:01PM: ongoing: reconcile deployment/simple-app (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:13:01PM: ^ Waiting for 1 unavailable replicas 2:13:01PM: L ok: waiting on replicaset/simple-app-7f9c78ccd8 (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:13:01PM: L ongoing: waiting on pod/simple-app-7f9c78ccd8-h7wlc (v1) namespace: default 2:13:01PM: ^ Pending: ContainerCreating 2:13:01PM: ---- waiting on 1 changes [1/2 done] ---- 2:13:03PM: ok: reconcile deployment/simple-app (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:13:03PM: ---- applying complete [2/2 done] ---- 2:13:03PM: ---- waiting complete [2/2 done] ---- Succeeded{{< / highlight >}}ls command shows list of all apps stored in current namespace. Apps themselves can span multiple namespaces and cluster scope.
{{< highlight bash "" >}} $ kapp ls Target cluster 'https://x.x.x.x' (nodes: gke-dk-jan-9-pool-1-d01bcd06-bgie, 4+) Apps in namespace 'default' Name Namespaces Lcs Lca app1 default true 25s Lcs: Last Change Successful Lca: Last Change Age 1 apps Succeeded{{< / highlight >}}Now let's update from one app configuration to another using deploy
command.
Since --diff-changes
is used,
kapp
will show detailed diff against
versions of resources in the cluster.
These first two resources will be created.
This resource will be updated.
This resource is will be deleted.
Changes summary is presented before deploy will continue. There are only few changes in this example.
Detailed progress log shows kapp waiting for associated resources to be ready. Readiness checks are specific to resource types.
{{< highlight bash "" >}} $ kapp deploy -a app1 -f examples/simple-app-example/config-2.yml --diff-changes Target cluster 'https://x.x.x.x' (nodes: gke-dk-jan-9-pool-1-d01bcd06-bgie, 4+) @@ create service/simple-app-node (v1) namespace: default @@ 0 + apiVersion: v1 1 + kind: Service 2 + metadata: 3 + labels: 4 + kapp.k14s.io/app: "1594663909283037000" 5 + kapp.k14s.io/association: v1.6e43c1cd2c7173a969d84f77ad6a72c2 6 + name: simple-app-node 7 + namespace: default 8 + spec: 9 + ports: 10 + - nodePort: 31111 11 + port: 80 12 + targetPort: 80 13 + selector: 14 + kapp.k14s.io/app: "1594663909283037000" 15 + simple-app: "" 16 + type: NodePort 17 + @@ create configmap/simple-app (v1) namespace: default @@ 0 + apiVersion: v1 1 + data: 2 + hello_msg: friend 3 + kind: ConfigMap 4 + metadata: 5 + labels: 6 + kapp.k14s.io/app: "1594663909283037000" 7 + kapp.k14s.io/association: v1.afcdfc989e2a0b3f3e526dc1c4176060 8 + name: simple-app 9 + namespace: default 10 + @@ update deployment/simple-app (apps/v1) namespace: default @@ ... 29, 29 - name: HELLO_MSG 30 - value: stranger 30 + valueFrom: 31 + configMapKeyRef: 32 + key: hello_msg 33 + name: simple-app 31, 34 image: docker.io/dkalinin/k8s-simple-app@sha256:4c8b96d4fffdfae29258d94a22ae4ad1f... 32, 35 name: simple-app @@ delete service/simple-app (v1) namespace: default @@ 0 - apiVersion: v1 1 - kind: Service 2 - metadata: 3 - creationTimestamp: "2020-07-13T18:12:59Z" 4 - labels: 5 - kapp.k14s.io/app: "1594663909283037000" 6 - kapp.k14s.io/association: v1.462a95c01b2a0bdc4d5acadc4a22dd74 7 - name: simple-app 8 - namespace: default 9 - resourceVersion: "69009086" 10 - selfLink: /api/v1/namespaces/default/services/simple-app 11 - uid: 4e8bb148-2de4-46b3-a2e1-53dacbaaff34 12 - spec: 13 - clusterIP: <IP_ADDRESS> 14 - ports: 15 - - port: 80 16 - targetPort: 80 17 - selector: 18 - kapp.k14s.io/app: "1594663909283037000" 19 - simple-app: "" 20 - status: 21 - loadBalancer: {} 22 - Changes Namespace Name Kind Conds. Age Op Op st. Wait to Rs Ri default simple-app ConfigMap - - create - reconcile - - ^ simple-app Deployment 2/2 t 2m update - reconcile ok - ^ simple-app Service - 2m delete - delete ok - ^ simple-app-node Service - - create - reconcile - - Op: 2 create, 1 delete, 1 update, 0 noop Wait to: 3 reconcile, 1 delete, 0 noop Continue? [yN]: 2:21:15PM: ---- applying 2 changes [0/4 done] ---- 2:21:15PM: delete service/simple-app (v1) namespace: default 2:21:15PM: create configmap/simple-app (v1) namespace: default 2:21:15PM: ---- waiting on 2 changes [0/4 done] ---- 2:21:15PM: ok: delete service/simple-app (v1) namespace: default 2:21:15PM: ok: reconcile configmap/simple-app (v1) namespace: default 2:21:15PM: ---- applying 2 changes [2/4 done] ---- 2:21:15PM: create service/simple-app-node (v1) namespace: default 2:21:17PM: update deployment/simple-app (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:21:17PM: ---- waiting on 2 changes [2/4 done] ---- 2:21:17PM: ok: reconcile service/simple-app-node (v1) namespace: default 2:21:17PM: ongoing: reconcile deployment/simple-app (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:21:17PM: ^ Waiting for 1 unavailable replicas 2:21:17PM: L ok: waiting on replicaset/simple-app-8558f78495 (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:21:17PM: L ok: waiting on replicaset/simple-app-7f9c78ccd8 (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:21:17PM: L ok: waiting on pod/simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt (v1) namespace: default 2:21:17PM: L ongoing: waiting on pod/simple-app-7f9c78ccd8-h7wlc (v1) namespace: default 2:21:17PM: ^ Deleting 2:21:17PM: ---- waiting on 1 changes [3/4 done] ---- 2:21:18PM: ok: reconcile deployment/simple-app (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:21:18PM: ---- applying complete [4/4 done] ---- 2:21:18PM: ---- waiting complete [4/4 done] ---- Succeeded{{< / highlight >}}inspect command shows list of live objects associated with given app. --tree view optionally shows simple parent-child resource relationships.
{{< highlight bash "" >}} $ kapp inspect -a app1 --tree Target cluster 'https://x.x.x.x' (nodes: gke-dk-jan-9-pool-1-d01bcd06-bgie, 4+) Resources in app 'app' Namespace Name Kind Owner Conds. Rs Ri Age default simple-app Deployment kapp 2/2 t ok - 8m default L simple-app-7f9c78ccd8 ReplicaSet cluster - ok - 8m default L simple-app-8558f78495 ReplicaSet cluster - ok - 28s default L.. simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt Pod cluster 4/4 t ok - 28s default simple-app-node Service kapp - ok - 28s default L simple-app-node Endpoints cluster - ok - 28s default simple-app ConfigMap kapp - ok - 28s Rs: Reconcile state Ri: Reconcile information 7 resources Succeeded{{< / highlight >}}logs command starts streaming logs from all Pods associated with given app.
{{< highlight bash "" >}} $ kapp logs -f -a app1 Target cluster 'https://x.x.x.x' (nodes: gke-dk-jan-9-pool-1-d01bcd06-bgie, 4+) # starting tailing 'simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt > simple-app' logs simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt > simple-app | 2020/07/13 18:21:16 Server started ^C{{< / highlight >}}delete command finds all resources in the cluster associated with given app, issues delete operation and waits for them be be deleted.
{{< highlight bash "" >}} $ kapp delete -a app1 Target cluster 'https://x.x.x.x' (nodes: gke-dk-jan-9-pool-1-d01bcd06-bgie, 4+) Changes Namespace Name Kind Conds. Age Op Op st. Wait to Rs Ri default simple-app ConfigMap - 1m delete - delete ok - ^ simple-app Deployment 2/2 t 10m delete - delete ok - ^ simple-app-7f9c78ccd8 ReplicaSet - 10m - - delete ok - ^ simple-app-8558f78495 ReplicaSet - 1m - - delete ok - ^ simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt Pod 4/4 t 1m - - delete ok - ^ simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt PodMetrics - 0s - - delete ok - ^ simple-app-node Endpoints - 1m - - delete ok - ^ simple-app-node Service - 1m delete - delete ok - Op: 0 create, 3 delete, 0 update, 5 noop Wait to: 0 reconcile, 8 delete, 0 noop Continue? [yN]: y 2:23:24PM: ---- applying 8 changes [0/8 done] ---- 2:23:24PM: noop endpoints/simple-app-node (v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: noop replicaset/simple-app-7f9c78ccd8 (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: noop pod/simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt (v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: noop podmetrics/simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt (metrics.k8s.io/v1beta1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: noop replicaset/simple-app-8558f78495 (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: delete deployment/simple-app (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: delete service/simple-app-node (v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: delete configmap/simple-app (v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: ---- waiting on 8 changes [0/8 done] ---- 2:23:24PM: ongoing: delete replicaset/simple-app-7f9c78ccd8 (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: ok: delete endpoints/simple-app-node (v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: ok: delete configmap/simple-app (v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: ongoing: delete replicaset/simple-app-8558f78495 (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: ongoing: delete pod/simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt (v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: ok: delete service/simple-app-node (v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: ok: delete deployment/simple-app (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:23:24PM: ongoing: delete podmetrics/simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt (metrics.k8s.io/v1beta1) namespa... 2:23:24PM: ---- waiting on 4 changes [4/8 done] ---- 2:23:26PM: ok: delete replicaset/simple-app-8558f78495 (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:23:26PM: ok: delete replicaset/simple-app-7f9c78ccd8 (apps/v1) namespace: default 2:23:26PM: ---- waiting on 2 changes [6/8 done] ---- 2:23:27PM: ok: delete podmetrics/simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt (metrics.k8s.io/v1beta1) namespace: d... 2:23:27PM: ok: delete pod/simple-app-8558f78495-zqwxt (v1) namespace: default 2:23:27PM: ---- applying complete [8/8 done] ---- 2:23:27PM: ---- waiting complete [8/8 done] ---- Succeeded{{< / highlight >}}


Resistration complete
Your reference number
123456
123456
Thank you for registering your project details.
You will receive an email confirming your registration.
If your details are correct UK Research and Innovation will be able to provide funding for participation in EU Framework Programmes. We will keep you informed of next steps in due course.
- Reference number
- 1234567
- Grant agreement number
- 123456
- Organisation type
- Business
- Registered name
- Nomensa Ltd
- Registration number
- 04214477
- Registered address
- King William House
13 Queen Square
Bristol
BS1 4NT - Full name
- Joe Bloggs
- Job title
- Executive
-<EMAIL_ADDRESS>- Telephone
-<PHONE_NUMBER>1
- Type of action
- (COFUND-EJP) COFUND (European Joint Programme)
- Call name
- Industrialisation of artificial intelligence
- Call identifier
- My EU project name
- Topic identifier
- PJ-04-2018: Blockchain-EICPrize-2019
- Project name
- My EU project name
- Project start date
- August 2017
- Project end date
- March 2019
- EU funding contribution for above project (EUR)
- €100,000
- Is your organisation the project co-ordinator on this project?
- Yes


LH
HOME
ABOUT
PRODUCTS
CONTACT
HOME
ABOUT
PRODUCTS
CONTACT
Search Products
Search
Search below for the type of clothing you want
Search
Red trousers
Info
Info
Red Shirt
Info
Info


I could have placed a timelss default self description, but opted to let you know I
messed up.
{% endfor %}
{% for icon in icons %}
{% endfor %}
I like to build some smaller things
{% for project in projects %}
{{ project.name }}
{% if project.git %}
{% endif %}
{% if project.link %}
{% endif %}
{% endfor %}
I have some noteworthy publications
{% for article in science %}
{{ article.title }}
{% endfor %}
Sometimes I write for fun
{% for article in medium %}
{% include 'blog/single_article.html' %}
{% endfor %}
Also check out my Photography and Videos
{% for gallery in galleries %}
{% include 'photography/single_gallery.html' %}
{% endfor %}
{% for video in videos %}
{% include 'videography/single_video.html' %}
{% endfor %}


Alice
@Mar 14 2015
Comment body
Another paragraph begins
Bob
@Mar 14 2015
@Alice
Comment body
Comments powered by
Cocona
.


Hi! My name is ELLIE FRANK! I am a middle school student and this is my first website!
I have played soccer my whole life. I started when I was three years old. I have played on a travel team for five years. Last season my team won our league division. It is my passion, and I play whenever I can. I was really inspired to keep playing when the US Women's Soccer Team won the World Cup in 2015.
 I listen to all different music genres. I also play the clarinet in my school band and have been doing this for three years now. My dad has played guitar for a long time and has taught me a little bit about playing one.
I love all animals! Some of my favorites are dogs and pigme goats. I have a pet dog named Frankie and he is about seven years old. I love dogs because they are loyal and exciting. I love pigme goats because they are very energetic and funny.
I love alllllllll foods. My favorites are probably brugers or almost anything fried. I also love desert foods especially ice cream cake.
Here are some of my favorite funny videos, links, and pictures.


Working Group on Core and Oblique Arguments and Adjuncts
Most of this chapter focuses on dependents of verbs. Some similar patterns of other parts of speech are discussed at the end of the chapter.
Most of this chapter assumes that the dependents are nominal phrases. Dependents realized as clauses are discussed at the end of the chapter.
- Core vs. oblique
- Coding strategies
- Can adjectives have core arguments?
- Can adverbs have core arguments?
- Can nouns have core arguments?
- Clausal complements
- Summary of relations
Core Arguments vs. Oblique Modifiers
The UD taxonomy is centered around the fairly clear distinction between core arguments (primarily subjects and objects) and other dependents. It does not make a distinction between adjuncts (general modifiers) and oblique arguments (arguments said to be selected by a head but not expressed as a core argument).
The Definition of Core Arguments
The core/oblique distinction is ultimately an information packaging distinction. All or nearly all languages have a basic way of expressing the one or two arguments of most verbs (intransitive and transitive verbs), and this unmarked form of argument expression is as a core argument. If additional arguments can appear that are treated similarly to these arguments, they may also be regarded as core arguments. (Some languages have no additional core arguments, while other languages allow multiple object arguments, for instance.) Status as a core argument is decoupled from the semantic roles of participants. Normally, depending on the meaning of a verb, many different semantic roles can be expressed by the same means of encoding core arguments. Nevertheless, there is a correlation: agent and patient or theme roles of predicates in their unmarked valence are normally realized as core arguments.
Syntactically, there is not a single criterion which can be used crosslinguistically to distinguish core arguments from obliques, though there are often good and useful criteria for particular languages. These include:
- Verbs usually only agree with core arguments
- Oblique arguments may usually or always appear marked by an adposition while core arguments appear as bare nominals
- Certain cases, traditionally called nominative, accusative, and absolutive typically mark core arguments
- Core arguments in many languages occupy special positions in the clause, often adjacent to the verb
- Syntactic phenomena such as being the controller of a subordinate clause argument or the target of relativization are limited to core arguments in some languages
At the end of the day, the distinction must be drawn and documented on language particular grounds. For example, many languages have certain verbs which take arguments in oblique cases such as dative or an experiencer case, but these arguments should be regarded as core arguments based on their syntactic behavior being parallel to the arguments of other transitive verbs.
Avoiding an Argument/Adjunct Distinction
Many grammatical frameworks suggest that some obliques are selected by or are arguments of a head (for instance, a source argument of from the Queen is an argument of the head receive), while other obliques are general adjuncts, which can appear with any predicate without the head selecting for them (for instance, a temporal argument such as after the holidays).
However, the argument/adjunct distinction is subtle, unclear, and frequently
argued over. For instance, syntacticians at certain times have argued for
various obliques to be arguments, while at other times arguing that they are
adjuncts, particularly for certain semantic roles such as oblique instruments
or sources. We take the distinction to be sufficiently subtle (and its
existence as a categorical distinction sufficiently questionable) that the
best practical solution is to eliminate it. Nevertheless, if the distinction
is available in a treebank that is being converted to UD, it can be preserved
using subtypes of dependency relations: obl:arg
is used for oblique
arguments, and bare obl
then denotes adjuncts.
The core-oblique distinction is generally accepted in language typology as being both more relevant and easier to apply cross-linguistically than the argument-adjunct distinction. See, for example:
- Avery D. Andrews. 2007. The Major Functions of the Noun Phrase. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Clause Structure (2nd ed), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 132-223. (1st edition, 1985.)
- Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Discourse Motivations for the Core-Oblique Distinction as a Language Universal. In Akio Kamio (ed.) Directions in Functional Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 59-82.
Coding Strategies
English
In English, nominal core arguments are bare noun phrases (that is, without preposition). Oblique arguments and nominal adjuncts are prepositional phrases. There is one exception: a bare nominal may be used as a temporal adjunct expressing duration:
- He works the whole week.
In an unmarked declarative sentence, the core argument preceding the verb is the subject, and if there is another core argument following the verb, it is the object. A finite verb agrees in person and number with its subject:
- The boy eats one apple.
- The boy eats many apples.
- The boys eat one apple.
 PUNCT _ _ 3 punct _ _
If the arguments are realized as personal pronouns, the subject is in the nominative form (I, he, she, we, they) and the object is in the accusative (me, him, her, us, them). Nouns do not inflect for case in English.
Transitive clauses (those that have an object) can be passivized, which means:
- Active verb form is replaced by passive (finite auxiliary + participle).
- Former object becomes subject.
- Former subject either disappears or becomes an oblique argument.
- One apple is eaten (by the boy(s)).
 PUNCT _ _ 4 punct _ _
The inability to passivize of He works the whole week is an argument in support of the claim that the clause is intransitive and the whole week is an adjunct rather than an object. However, this test is not sufficient because there is a small set of verbs that have objects but do not passivize:
- John has a new car. (*A new car is had by John.)
- Friday does not suit me. (*I am not suited by Friday.)
Therefore, durational temporal adjuncts have to be stated as an exception, and this is the one case where the argument/adjunct distinction cannot be avoided in UD.
  PUNCT _ _ 2 punct _ _
Joakim: I think word order tests can be used to distinguish these two cases (instead of appealing to the arg/adj distinction):
- John worked the whole week in Paris. John worked in Paris the whole week.
- John spent the whole week in Paris. *John spent in Paris the whole week. </span>
Dan: In English, yes. But the same adjunct appears in Spanish and Czech too.
Some English verbs allow two objects (i.e., two core arguments following the verb):
- Peter gave Kate a book.
- Tom teaches me mathematics.
The traditional approach outside UD is to call the first object indirect and the second object direct; it is often defined in terms of semantic roles, saying that the recipient is the indirect object. UD avoids referring to semantic roles and says instead that indirect object is a core argument of the verb that is not its subject or direct object; the (direct) object is then defined as “the second most core argument of a verb after the subject.” In the above examples, the recipient (Kate, me) is arguably more core than the theme (book, mathematics) because the recipient can be promoted in passivization while the theme cannot:
- Kate was given a book by Peter. (*A book was given Kate by Peter.) Nathan: “A book was given Kate” sounds unusual or archaic but not completely ungrammatical to me. You can find examples on the web of “advice was given him/her”, for example. Some COCA examples: “how do you feel about John Poindexter and the sentence that was given him today?” (1990 spoken), “But when the rooms had been shown and the paper was given him to sign, Frisch hesitated, clutching the pen.” (1990 fiction). Not many COCA examples with by-phrases—only found this one from a 2012 interview with Sarah Palin, who is known for her colorful use of English: “And he got a standing ovation at the end of the speech, and that was given him by those who paid attention and stayed to the end, if you will, and heard what he had to say.” No examples in EWT of a passive verb with
iobj
, though. - I am taught mathematics by Tom. (*Mathematics is taught me by Tom.)
The second object can be promoted only if both the subject and the first object are recoded as oblique arguments (in the case of to give) or the first object is removed (in the case of to teach):
- A book was given by Peter to Kate.
- Mathematics is taught by Tom. (*Mathematics is taught by Tom to me.)
Therefore, the UD v2 guidelines actually require that the second object
is labeled iobj
. Yet in the current English data (UD 2.1), it is still
the first object that is labeled iobj
, and the second object is obj
.
  PUNCT _ _ 3 punct _ _
Joakim: I don’t think this is specified by the v2 guidelines. I tried to argue for it on GitHub, based on syntactic criteria, but people pushed back saying that it is convenient for NLP applications to have the same relation for the recipient role in both cases. This needs to be resolved.
TO DO: How do we explain that an oblique nominal is annotated as subject in subordinate infinitival clause, as in It was impossible for him to attend the meeting. Some authors (I do not remember where exactly I saw it) say that it is quite common that core arguments are coded differently in subordinate clauses. But can we prove that the for-phrase is indeed a subject? It is not sufficient to say that it has the same semantic role as the corresponding bare nominal in a main finite clause. If it was sufficient, then the by-phrases in passive clauses would be subjects too!
Joakim: We definitely need to allow different coding in subordinate clauses. That is the rule in languages like Latin and Turkish. But I think we should save this for the section on subordinate clauses.
Spanish
The behavior of Spanish core arguments is somewhat similar to English but there are differences. Like in English, it is typical for a core argument to be a bare nominal without preposition. However, prepositions are not completely excluded. If the object is a person, it is marked by the preposition a:
- Vimos a alguien. “We saw somebody.”
The subject’s person and number is cross-referenced by verbal inflection. Spanish is a pro-drop language, meaning that the subject can be omitted if it is a personal pronoun.
- (Yo) bebo vino. “I drink wine.”
- (Tú) bebes vino. “You drink wine.” (singular)
- El hombre bebe vino. “The man drinks wine.”
- (Nosotros) bebemos vino. “We drink wine.”
- (Vosotros) bebéis vino. “You drink wine.” (plural)
- Los hombres beben vino.
If the arguments are realized as personal pronouns, the subject is in the nominative form (yo, tú, él, nosotros, vosotros, ellos) and the object is in the accusative (me, te, lo, nos, os, los). Nouns do not inflect for case in Spanish.
If both core arguments are present and if they are realized as full noun phrases, the prototypical word order is the same as in English: the subject precedes the verb and the object follows it. However, if the object is realized as a pronominal clitic (and if the verb is finite indicative), the object precedes the verb.
- El hombre lo bebe.
Transitive clauses (those that have an object) can be passivized.
- El vino es bebido por los hombres. “The wine is drunk by the men.”
- Las bebidas son bebidas por los hombres.
Both coding strategies that are used for core arguments can also appear with adjuncts. Bare nominal adjuncts are rare, the exception being durational temporal adjuncts. In contrast, the preposition a can be used with various directional and temporal adjuncts.
- Él trabaja toda la semana. “He works the whole week.”
- Subiremos al tren a las cinco.
Neither toda la semana nor al tren or a las cinco can be promoted via passivization.
Some Spanish verbs allow two objects:
- Pedro dio un libro a Isabel. “Pedro gave Isabel a book.”
- Pedro le dio un libro a Isabel. “Pedro gave Isabel a book.”
- Pedro le dio un libro. “Pedro gave her a book.”
- Santiago me enseña las matemáticas. “Santiago teaches me mathematics.”
One of the objects typically corresponds to the recipient semantic role and it most likely refers to a person, therefore it will be marked by the preposition a (if it is realized as a full noun phrase). If it is represented by a pronominal clitic, it will be in the dative form (identical with the accusative except for the third person, which is le, les, and does not distinguish gender).
The object that is marked by the preposition a or by the dative case of the pronoun (i.e., the one with the recipient role) is labeled as an indirect object; the unmarked/accusative object is direct. This is in line with the UD v2 guidelines: if the clause is passivized, the direct object is promoted to the subject relation, while the indirect object stays untouched. Hence the indirect object is less core than the direct object.
- Un libro fue dado a Isabel por Pedro.
Joakim: Why do we treat the recipient as core in Spanish but not in English when they both have prepositions? Is this because prepositions are found with direct objects in Spanish but not in English? And what would we then do in French, where the recipient takes a prepositions but where prepositions are never used with prepositions? Same as English? It would also be possible (at least in French) to argue for a mixed system, where full noun phrases are oblique (because they take a preposition) but pronouns are core (because they have dative case).
Czech
Classification of verbal arguments in Czech depends on case morphology. There are certain anomalies of the case system when the argument is a quantified phrase (with a cardinal number or a pronominal quantifier, the head noun may have different case than the entire phrase). We exclude quantified phrases from the following overview.
The coding strategy most typical for Czech core arguments is bare noun phrase in nominative or accusative. Some authors claim that core arguments are not marked for case. This is not true and Czech is one of the counter-examples. The nominative can be considered unmarked in the vague sense that it is the default case that is used if there are no external factors requiring another case. However, it is not unmarked in the morphological sense: many nouns must use suffixes to form the nominative (and the same holds for the accusative).
The nominative argument is the subject, the accusative is object. The subject’s person, number, and sometimes also gender and animacy are cross-referenced by verbal inflection. Czech is a pro-drop language, meaning that the subject can be omitted if it is a personal pronoun.
- Snědl jsem jablko. “I ate an apple.” (masculine)
- Snědla jsem jablko. “I ate an apple.” (feminine)
- Snědl jsi jablko. “You ate an apple.” (masculine singular)
- Snědla jsi jablko. “You ate an apple.” (feminine singular)
- Chlapec snědl jablko. “The boy ate an apple.”
- Snědl jablko. “He ate an apple.”
- Snědla jablko. “She ate an apple.”
- Snědlo jablko. “It ate an apple.”
- Snědli jsme jablko. “We ate an apple.” (masculine animate)
- Snědly jsme jablko. “We ate an apple.” (feminine)
- Snědli jste jablko. “You ate an apple.” (masculine animate plural)
- Snědly jste jablko. “You ate an apple.” (feminine plural)
- Snědli jablko. “They ate an apple.” (masculine animate)
- Snědly jablko. “They ate an apple.” (feminine or masculine inanimate)
- Snědla jablko.  PUNCT _ _ 2 punct _ _
Czech word order is free and while the SVO order is preferred by default, other permutations are possible and may be required to distinguish topic and focus.
- Chlapec snědl jablko. “The/a boy ate an apple.”
- Jablko snědl chlapec. “It was a/the boy who ate the apple.”
- Chlapec jablko snědl. “What the boy did to the apple was that he ate it.”
- Jablko chlapec snědl. “As for the apple, what the boy did to it was that he ate it.”
- Snědl chlapec jablko. “A boy ate an apple.”
- Snědl jablko chlapec. “A boy ate an apple.” (Most unusual order but not impossible.)
Transitive clauses (those that have an accusative object) can be passivized.
- Jablko bylo snědeno chlapcem. “The apple was eaten by the boy.”
- Jablka byla snědena chlapcem.
There are a few verbs with accusative objects that cannot passivize, for instance:
- Chlapec dostal čokoládu. “The boy got chocolate.” (*Čokoláda byla dostána chlapcem.)
- Chlapec má čokoládu. “The boy has chocolate.” (*Čokoláda je mána chlapcem.)
It is not guaranteed that a bare accusative nominal is a core argument. It can also be a durational temporal adjunct, as in:
- Pracuje celý týden.
The nominal celý týden cannot be promoted to subject via passivization, which supports the claim that it is not an object; however, this test is not sufficient because of the exceptional verbs like dostat “to get” and mít “to have”. Therefore, durational temporal adjuncts have to be stated as an exception and the argument/adjunct distinction cannot be avoided in this case.
Many two-argument verbs in Czech specify the second argument as a bare noun phrase in a case other than accusative. Whether these arguments are core arguments is a point of disagreement among different authors. The current (UD 2.1) approach in UD for Czech and several similar Indo-European languages is to analyze them as core.
Some of the verbs resemble prototypical transitive verbs in that their arguments have the roles of agent and patient. For instance, the verb pomoci “to help” takes a dative argument:
- Zuzka pomohla Martinovi s domácím úkolem. “Zuzka helped Martin with his homework.”
The clause can be passivized. However, the dative argument is not promoted by the passivization to the subject relation. It stays in dative and the verb does not cross-reference its person, number or gender. Instead, verbal morphology switches to the default singular neuter agreement with unexpressed subject. This suggests that the dative argument is less core-like (if at all) than a standard accusative object.
- Martinovi bylo pomoženo s domácím úkolem.
If dative arguments are core objects, then we may want to distinguish them from benefactive adjuncts that are also encoded as bare nominals in the dative (that is, if we acknowledge that benefactives should be adjuncts):
- Zuzka Martinovi udělala večeři. “Zuzka prepared a dinner for Martin.”
- Zuzka Martinovi koupila večeři. “Zuzka bought a dinner for Martin.”
- Zuzka Martinovi objednala večeři. “Zuzka ordered a dinner for Martin.”
- Zuzka Martinovi snědla večeři. “Zuzka ate Martin’s dinner.”
Joakim: If benefactives and datives have the same encoding, perhaps they should both be regarded as oblique (to facilitate annotation).
Similarly, there are objects realized as bare genitives and even instrumentals, with the same passivization pattern as datives. Instrumental objects have to be distinguished from demoted oblique agents in passive constructions, and from instrumental adjuncts.
- Novináři musí dbát zásad objektivity. “Journalists must observe principles of objectivity.” (genitive)
- Musí být dbáno zásad objektivity. “Principles of objectivity must be observed.”
- Karel hýbal nábytkem. “Karel moved furniture.” (instrumental)
- Nábytkem bylo hýbáno. “The furniture has been moved.”
The Czech grammar also recognizes prepositional objects but we do not consider them core (which means they are not objects in UD). In fact, the definition of object in the Czech grammar is identical with argument and leads to the argument/adjunct distinction, disfavored in UD. Most adjuncts are prepositional phrases, thus the bulk of the decisions would have to be done for prepositional phrases; that is the main reason why bare datives are analyzed as core objects while prepositional phrases are not. It is worth noting that the neuter singular passivization that is described above for bare datives, genitives and instrumentals is also available for prepositional phrases and even for some intransitive verbs, although such constructions are rare:
- Spoléhali na ředitelovo rozhodnutí. “They relied on the director’s decision.”
- Na ředitelovo rozhodnutí bylo spoléháno. “It was relied on the director’s decision.”
- Ředitel rozhodl v pátek. “The director decided on Friday.”
- V pátek bylo rozhodnuto. “It was decided on Friday.”
Some Czech verbs allow two objects. Typically, one object is accusative and the other is dative; nevertheless, some other combinations are possible, too.
- Petr dal Katce knihu. “Petr gave Katka a book.” (dative + accusative)
- Tomáš mě učí matematiku. “Tomáš teaches me mathematics.” (accusative + accusative)
- Muž vyhrožoval sousedovi smrtí. “A man threatened his neighbor with death.” (dative + instrumental)
The dative-accusative construction can be passivized so that the accusative object is promoted to subject, the dative object stays as it is, and the former subject disappears (or, rarely, is transformed to instrumental). It is thus confirmed that the dative object is less core than the accusative, hence the dative should be labeled as indirect.
- Kniha byla dána Katce (Petrem). “The book was given to Katka (by Petr).”
The verb učit “to teach” is special in that it allows two accusatives: one representing the theme (mathematics) and the other the recipient (me). Either one can be omitted and then we have a normal transitive clause with an accusative object that can be promoted via passivization. However, if both arguments are present in the active clause, it is not possible to promote one of them and leave the other untouched; the grammar does not tolerate a bare accusative argument in a passive clause. Also note that there is a slightly archaic alternative where the theme (not the recipient!) takes the dative form. Here the passive might in theory be available but it still sounds clumsy.
- Tomáš učí matematiku. “Tomáš teaches mathematics.”
- Matematika je učena Tomášem. “Mathematics is taught by Tomáš.”
- Tomáš mě učí. “Tomáš teaches me.”
- (Já) jsem učen Tomášem. “I am taught by Tomáš.”
- Tomáš mě učí matematiku. “Tomáš teaches me mathematics.”
- (*Jsem učen matematiku Tomášem. *Matematika je učena mě Tomášem.)
- Tomáš mě učí matematice. “Tomáš teaches me mathematics.” (mathematics in dative)
- (?Jsem učen matematice (Tomášem).) “I am taught mathematics (by Tomáš).”
There thus does not seem to be any evidence that one of the accusatives is more core than the other. We have an example of a clause with two objects, neither of which is indirect.
Finally, in the dative-instrumental construction, the passivization follows rules similar to clauses with one non-accusative object: former subject disappears but the objects stay untouched. Moreover, if the subject is not removed but transformed to an instrumental argument, it is likely that the original instrumental argument will be removed instead. Yet it is not completely ungrammatical to keep them both (see the example below; but it is highly preferred that the two instrumental arguments are not adjacent).
- Muž vyhrožoval sousedovi smrtí. “A man threatened his neighbor with death.”
- Sousedovi bylo vyhrožováno smrtí. “The neighbor was threatened with death.”
- Sousedovi bylo vyhrožováno mužem. “The neighbor was threatened by the man.”
- Mužem bylo sousedovi vyhrožováno smrtí. “The neighbor was threatened by the man with death.”
The dative-instrumental construction is one where both objects are clearly less core than accusative objects, but none of the two is more or less core than the other. Therefore, none of them can be labeled as indirect.
- Petr dal Katce knihu.
- Kniha byla dána Katce Petrem. “The book was given to Katka by Petr.”
# text = Kniha byla dána Katce Petrem.
# text_en = The book was given to Katka by Petr.
1 Kniha kniha NOUN _ Case=Nom|Gender=Fem|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos 3 nsubj:pass _ Gloss=book
2 byla být AUX _ Gender=Fem|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos|Tense=Past|VerbForm=Part 3 aux:pass _ Gloss=was
3 dána daný ADJ _ Gender=Fem|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos|Variant=Short|VerbForm=Part|Voice=Pass 0 root _ Gloss=given
4 Katce Katka PROPN _ Case=Dat|Gender=Fem|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos 3 iobj _ Gloss=to-Katka
5 Petrem Petr PROPN _ Animacy=Anim|Case=Ins|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos 3 obl:agent _ Gloss=by-Petr|SpaceAfter=No
6 . .
- Tomáš mě učí matematiku.
Basque
See also: Fernando Zúñiga, Beatriz Fernández (draft 26.6.2014): Grammatical relations in Basque
In Basque, like in Czech, nominal case morphology is essential for recognition of core argument relations. However, instead of nominative-accusative, the core pair of cases in Basque is ergative-absolutive. Most two-argument verbs have one argument in the ergative and the other in the absolutive case (but see below for other possibilities). The ergative argument is labeled as subject, the absolutive argument is object. With primary transitive verbs, the ergative argument corresponds to the agent and the absolutive argument to the patient.
- Ekaitzak itsasontzia hondoratu du.
The single argument of intransitive verbs takes mostly the absolutive but sometimes the ergative form. It is labeled as subject in both cases.
- Gizona hil da.
- Urak irakin du.
The third core case is the dative. Arguments in all three core cases are cross-referenced on finite verbs. Thanks to cross-referencing, the arguments can be omitted if they are just personal pronouns.
Some two-argument verbs take dative+absolutive, instead of ergative+absolutive:
- (Niri) ardoa gustatzen zait. “I like wine.” (lit.
In the current data (UD 2.1), the dative argument seems to be labeled iobj
even in dative-absolutive constructions. However, Zúñiga and Fernández (2014)
write that the dative encodes the A function in such constructions; that
would mean that it should be nsubj
.
Some two-argument verbs take ergative+dative, instead of ergative+absolutive:
- Irakasleak haserre begiratu die ikasleei.
In the current data (UD 2.1), the dative argument seems to be labeled iobj
even in ergative-dative constructions. However, Zúñiga and Fernández (2014)
write that the dative encodes the P function in such constructions; that
would mean that it should be obj
.
There are verbs that take all three core arguments. In such constructions,
the ergative encodes the A function, absolutive the P function (also T function = theme-like),
and dative the G function (goal). In terms of dependency relations, it seems
reasonable to label the ergative as nsubj
, absolutive as obj
and dative
as iobj
just to distinguish them and to acknowledge that absolutives and
ergatives are more frequent than datives; though the grammar does not seem to
target the absolutive argument in specific rules, which would make it
more core-like than the dative.
- (Nik) (zuri) liburua eman dizut.
- Zezenak saihetsa pitzatu zidan.
Basque does not have a canonical passive construction, although there are constructions that have been called passive by some authors in the past.
While the passive, if it existed, would decrease the valency of the verb, there is another operation that increases the valency: the causative:
- Active verb form is replaced by causative.
- Former subject becomes dative object and denotes the causee.
- A new ergative subject appears and denotes the causer.
Analogically to the passive, it is recommended that the relations with modified interpretation (if overtly present) are labeled as subtypes: the causer as nsubj:caus and the true agent as iobj:agent.
- (Guk) arazo hau ikusi genuen. “We have seen this problem.” (active)
- (Horiek) (guri) arazo hau ikuserazi digute.   PUNCT _ _ 5 punct _ Gloss=.
Joakim: I think it might be better to use “nsubj:caus” and “iobj:caus”, indicating that these are arguments of a causative and therefore do not have the expected role but without specifying the role (cause and agent). This is more parallel with “nsubj:pass”, where we just indicate that it is the subject of a passive and therefore has an unexpected role but without specifying what the role is.
The fact that the causative is available for dative-absolutive verbs supports the claim that the dative argument indeed is the subject in active voice of those verbs.
- Zopa izugarri gustatzen zaio mutilari. “The boy likes the soup a lot.”
- Goseak zopa hori izugarri gustatuerazi zion mutilari.   PUNCT _ _ 5 punct _ Gloss=.
Causative is only marginally accepted with ditransitive verbs, apparently due to the marginal acceptance of two dative-marked arguments in the same clause.
Yidiɲ
See also:
- Avery D. Andrews: The major functions of the noun phrase (2007). In Timothy Shopen (ed.): Language Typology and Syntactic Description, second edition, volume I: Clause Structure. Pp. 193-197. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-58156-1.
- R. M. W. Dixon: A Grammar of Yidiny (1977). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-21462-9.
Yidiɲ (Pama-Nyungan, Australia) has a combination of the ergative-absolutive system (similar to Basque) and the nominative-accusative system (similar to Czech). The former pair is typical for nouns, the latter for pronouns.
- Ŋayu maŋga:ɲ. “I laughed.” (nominative)
- Buɲa maŋga:ɲ. “The woman laughed.” (absolutive)
- Ŋaɲaɲ buɲa:ŋ wuɹa:ɲ. “The woman slapped me.” (ergative-accusative)
- Ŋayu buɲa wuɹa:ɲ. “I slapped the woman.” (nominative-absolutive)
- Waguɖaŋgu guda:ga wawa:l. “The man saw the dog.” (ergative-absolutive)
# sent_id = 3.98a/yii
# Yidiɲ (Pama-Nyungan, Australia)
# source = Dixon, 1977
# text = Ŋayu maŋga:ɲ.
# gloss = I(NOM) laugh-PAST
# text_en = I laughed.
1 Ŋayu ŋayu PRON _ Case=Nom|Number=Sing|Person=1|PronType=Prs 2 nsubj _ Gloss=I|MGloss=I(NOM)
2 maŋga:ɲ maŋgan VERB _ Tense=Past 0 root _ Gloss=laughed|MSeg=maŋga:-ɲ|MGloss=laugh-PAST|SpaceAfter=No
3 . .
There is a type of subordinate clause that is called dative subordinate (datsub) because its head verb takes a subjunctive suffix similar to the dative suffix of nouns. The clause may be analyzed as a relative clause dependent on a noun phrase in the main clause. The coreferential noun phrase in the subordinate clause may be elided. There is a near requirement (with some exceptions) that the coreferential nominal has S/P function in both clauses, i.e., it is the subject of an intransitive predicate or the object of a transitive predicate:
- Ŋayu maŋga:ɲ (ŋaɲaɲ) buɲa:n wuɹa:ɲunda. “I, (who) was slapped by the woman, laughed.”
- Ŋaɲaɲ buɲa:ŋ wuɹa:ɲ (ŋayu) maŋga:ɲunda.
If we want to use this construction for a nominal with A function (i.e., the subject of a transitive predicate) in either of the two clauses, we must first transform the clause to antipassive, which means:
- Active verb form is replaced by antipassive.
- Former object is transformed to the dative or locative case and becomes oblique argument.
- The subject is still subject, but now of an intransitive predicate. Its function changed from A to S.
Analogically to the passive, we may want to use a relation subtype for the demoted object: obl:patient.
- Waguɖaŋgu guda:ga wawa:l. “The man saw the dog.” (active)
- Wagu:ɖa gudaganda wawa:ɖiɲu.
- Ŋayu buɲa wuɹa:ɲ. “I slapped the woman.” (active)
- Ŋayu buɲa:nda wuɹa:ɖiɲu.
It is now possible to combine clauses so that the subject of an originally transitive (now intransitive) predicate is coreferential:
- Ŋayu maŋga:ɲ (ŋayu) buɲa:nda wuɹa:ɖiɲunda.
- Ŋayu buɲa:nda wuɹa:ɖiɲu (ŋayu) maŋgaɲunda.
Andrews notes that besides the relative clause analysis, these sentences can be also interpreted adverbially. The core-oblique distinction and the antipassive stay the same but the UD trees change:
- Ŋayu maŋga:ɲ (ŋayu) buɲa:nda wuɹa:ɖiɲunda.
- Ŋayu buɲa:nda wuɹa:ɖiɲu (ŋayu) maŋgaɲunda.
Tagalog
Tagalog is a representative of a subset of Austronesian languages that have been described as symmetric-voice languages. There is an agent voice, where the most core argument corresponds to the agent role, and a patient voice, where the most core argument corresponds to the patient. It is tempting to reuse our labels of active and passive for these voices. There are at least two important differences from what these terms mean in Indo-European languages, though. First, the two voices in Tagalog are more symmetric and it is hard to say that the active is default, unmarked, and the passive is marked. The passive is not morphologically more complex than the passive. Both the agent and the patient regularly appear in both voices. They are coded differently, but both are coded as core, not oblique arguments. Both “active” and “passive” clauses thus can be transitive.
The second difference is that there are more voices than the agent-oriented and the patient-oriented one. There is also a voice that fronts a locational argument, for example.
The arguments are marked by function words that could be analyzed as either prepositions, or case-bearing determiners. Although adpositions are often associated with oblique arguments and adjuncts, we have seen that it is not a universal rule. Spanish marks a human direct object with the preposition a; Slavic and other languages have prepositional object that, despite not being considered core in UD, seem to work the same way as other non-accusative (but preposition-less, and currently core) arguments; and in Japanese, all arguments are marked by postpositions, including the subject and the direct object. On the other hand, if the nominal markers in Tagalog are determiners, then Tagalog somewhat resembles modern German, where nominal inflection has been greatly reduced and the varying forms of determiners are often the only clue about the case of a noun phrase. Categorizing the Tagalog markers as determiners seems to be more favored in the literature.
The most core-like argument (also called pivot) is marked by the determiner ang. The other core argument (if any) is marked by the determiner ng (pronounced nang). A different set of determiners is used with proper nouns. No determiners are used with personal pronouns, but the pronouns themselves inflect for case.
There have been disputes about whether the pivot is subject and whether
Tagalog has a subject at all. Nevertheless, there does not seem to be any
better solution than to simply identify it with the subject in UD.
EDIT: Further discussion is needed. Andrews cites
others and says (below examples 124) that both ang and ng arguments are
core, but the actor is more subject-like regardless of whether it is pivot or
not. That would mean that we should use the nsubj
relation for the ang
argument of agent-voice verbs, the ng argument of patient-voice verbs,
and we would have to select one of two ng arguments in other voices,
depending on which argument semantically fits the agent role.
It seems appropriate to mark the determiners and the personal pronouns with
the Case feature: the pivot with nominative, and the other core argument
with accusative.
- Nagsalita ka.        PUNCT _ _ 1 punct _ Gloss=punct
Transitive (two-argument) sentences have two core arguments, one in the
nominative (pronoun or determiner) and the other in the accusative. We may
want to use relation subtypes for the arguments in the patient voice (similarly
to what we do in the English passive): nsubj:pass for the subject and
obj:agent (not obl:agent
!) for the object. However, the subtypes should
not be taken to suggest that the agent voice is default and unmarked.
- Naglilinis siya ng bahay.   “She cleans the house. / The house is cleaned by her.” (patient voice)
# text = Nililinis niya ang bahay.
# text_en = She cleans the house.  PUNCT _ _ 1 punct _ Gloss=punct
Locative, directional and benefactive arguments are normally coded as oblique. However, there are additional voices where these arguments become subjects. One of the reasons why an argument is fronted as the subject is that the subject is understood as the topic of the sentence. The ang determiner implies definiteness (while ng-marked arguments can be definite or indefinite). Here is an example of a sentence in four different voices:
- Magaalis ang babae ng bigas sa sako para sa bata. “The woman will take some rice out of a/the sack for a/the child.” (agent voice)
- Aalisin ng babae ang bigas sa sako para sa bata. “A/the woman will take the rice out of a/the sack for a/the child.” (patient voice)
- Aalisan ng babae ng bigas ang sako para sa bata. “A/the woman will take some rice out of the sack for a/the child.” (locative voice)
- Ipagaalis ng babae ng bigas sa sako ang bata. “A/the woman will take some rice out of a/the sack for the child.” (benefactive voice)
# sent_id = 3.111a/tl
# text = Magaalis ang babae ng bigas sa sako para sa bata.
# gloss = AP-FUT-take.out PIV woman OBJ rice DIR sack for BEN child
# text_en = The woman will take some rice out of a/the sack for a/the child.

Since the agent and patient stay core arguments even in the locative and benefactive voices, we actually have a ditransitive clause with three core arguments. In contrast, the verbs of giving, which are typical representatives of ditransitive predicates in other languages, form a standard transitive clause in the agent and patient voices, as the recipient is coded as a directioal (locative) oblique dependent.
- Nagbigay ang lalaki ng libro sa babae.
Plains Cree
See also:
- Arok Elessar Wolvengrey (2011): Semantic and pragmatic functions in Plains Cree syntax (PhD thesis). Utrecht: LOT. ISBN 978-94-6093-051-5.
The Algonquian (North American) language Plains Cree is similar to Basque in its cross-referencing of both the subject and the object by verbal inflection. It is also very dissimilar to Basque due to its almost complete lack of case marking on the nouns. Yet the marking of the argument on the verbal head is sufficient to allow for a relatively free word order (unlike English).
Like in many other languages where person and number of an argument is cross-referenced by the verb, the argument does not need to appear as a separate word if it would be just a pronoun.
- Niwīcihānānak. “We help them.”
- Niwīcihikonānak. “They help us.”
# text = Niwīcihānānak.
# text_en = We help them.
1 Niwīcihānānak wīcih VERB _ Animacy=Anim|Clusivity[high]=Ex|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Plur|Number[low]=Plur|Person[high]=1|Person[low]=3|Tense=Pres|Voice=Dir 0 root _ Gloss=we-help-them|MSeg=ni-wīcih-ā-nān-ak|MGloss=1-help-DIR-1PL-3PL|SpaceAfter=No
2 . .
The two verb forms in the two previous examples differ in Voice. The first example is in the direct voice, where the argument higher in a language-specific obliqueness hierarchy is more agent-like and the other argument is more patient-like. First person arguments are higher than third person arguments, therefore the agent is “we” and the patient is “they”.
In the second example, the argument-marking morphemes have not changed but the verb is in the inverse voice where the argument lower in the hierarchy (“they”) is the agent and the higher argument (“we”) is the patient.
In a parallel to the active-passive voice system of English, we can postulate
that the argument higher in the hierarchy is the subject (i.e., the most core
argument), and the lower argument is the object.
And like with English passives, the voice has to be considered when one wants
to map the grammatical relations to semantic roles.
In the two previous examples, the arguments are not overtly present and the
dependency relations are not visible. However, if there are overt arguments
in an inverse voice clause, we may again want to use relation subtypes to
signal that the default interpretation does not apply.
TBD: Should we use nsubj:pass and obj:agent
as in symmetric-voice languages? Or something else? Or should we even replace
nsubj:pass
in other languages by something more neutral?
Alternatively, we could make the direct-inverse voice system special in that
we resolve the roles already in the relation labeling, i.e., higher-ranking
argument will be labeled nsubj
in direct voice and obj
in inverse voice,
and lower-ranking argument will be obj
in direct voice and nsubj
in
inverse voice. That is, if there are not some typical subject tests known
from other languages that will contradict our proposal.
At present I do not know anything about subjecthood tests applied to Plains
Cree.
- Nikī-wīcihāw Cān. “I helped John.”
# text = Nikī-wīcihāw Cān.
# text_en = I helped John.
1 Nikī-wīcihāw wīcih VERB _ Animacy=Anim|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Sing|Number[low]=Sing|Person[high]=1|Person[low]=3|Tense=Past|Voice=Dir 0 root _ Gloss=I-helped-him|MSeg=ni-kī-wīcih-ā-w|MGloss=1-PAST-help-DIR-3SG
2 Cān Cān PROPN _ Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Prx 1 obj _ Gloss=John|SpaceAfter=No
3 . .
- Nikī-wīcihāwak Cān ēkwa Mēriy.
If two third-person arguments are involved, one of them is considered proximate (more topical, higher in the obliqueness hierarchy) and the other is considered obviative (less topical, lower in the obliqueness hierarchy). The obviative noun is marked morphologically by the suffix -a. Note that Plains Cree distinguishes singular and plural Number for proximate but not for obviative third person arguments.
Current UD data (as of UD 2.1) does not include languages with direct-inverse
voice systems and proximate-obviative division of third-person arguments.
Joakim: But I think similar cases are discussed
with reference to UD in this paper on Arapaho.
The guidelines define a special value for the “fourth person”, which could be
used for obviative arguments (see Person). This value is inspired by the
Unimorph project.
However, the Unimorph specification seems to favor using Person=3
with an
additional subfeature for proximate and obviative status:
“In some languages, a fourth person category is used to describe an otherwise
third-person referent that is differentiated from other third-person referents
by a switch-reference-like distinction … or, more commonly, by a distinction in
obviation status… For the purposes of morphological distinctions, these fourth
person categories may call for dedicated verbal morphology. While in some
cases their meaning can be captured by third person (3) plus switch-reference
features or features marking pragmatic voice distinctions (such as the
proximate (PRX) and obviative (OBV)), we include a fourth person category with
the feature 4 to allow for identification of a fourth person category when the
semantic distinctions are complicated or not strictly inflectional in nature.”
A possible alternative would be to revoke the “fourth person” and define
a separate feature Obviation
with the values Prx
and Obv
. There are two
places where the feature could be used: as a verbal feature (cross-referencing
the argument) and as a nominal feature (marking the argument). Especially in
nominal inflection it seems preferable to use a new feature rather than assert
that the noun inflects for person (with values 3
and 4
only).
Yet another option would be to include the nominal inflection under Case
marking, i.e., a noun with the obviative morpheme would be Case=Acc
and
the unmarked nouns would be Case=Nom
. However, such an extension could be
perceived as stretching the usual definition of case too far. The main oddity
would be that it only applies to third-person referents and only if two such
referents compete as arguments of the same verb. If one argument of the verb
is first-person and the other third-person, both will stay in the “nominative”
regardless of their semantic roles. Therefore, defining a new feature,
separate from Case
, is probably a better and less confusing solution.
- Cāniy kī-wīcihēw Mērīwa. “Johnny helped Mary.” (direct voice)
- Cānīwa kī-wīcihēw Mēriy. “Mary helped Johnny.” (direct voice)
- Cāniy kī-wīcihik Mērīwa. “Mary helped Johnny. / Johnny was helped by Mary.” (inverse voice)
- Cānīwa kī-wīcihik Mēriy. “Johnny helped Mary.   PUNCT _ _ 2 punct _ Gloss=.
# text = Cāniy kī-wīcihik Mērīwa.
# text_en = Mary helped Johnny.  PUNCT _ _ 2 punct _ Gloss=.
# text = Cānīwa kī-wīcihik Mēriy.
# text_en = Johnny helped Mary.
Ditransitive verbs (that is, verbs with three arguments) still cross-reference only two arguments on the verb. It is always the recipient-like argument that is cross-referenced, while the theme stays outside. Hence the recipient (goal) is more core than the theme, and deserves to be labeled obj. The question is whether the theme is still a core argument (and thus labeled iobj) or it is already oblique. Allowing it the core status seems to be at a similar level of tolerance as with the non-accusative objects in languages like Czech. The themes in Plains Cree are not indexed on the verb, though their own surface form (bare nominal) is not different from the core arguments.
- Nikī-miyāw anima masinahikan. “I gave him/her that book.” (direct voice)
- Nikī-miyik anima masinahikan. “He/she gave me that book.” (inverse voice)
- Nikī-kiskinwahamawāw nēhiyawēwin. “I taught him/her Cree.” (direct voice)
- Nikī-kiskinwahamāk nēhiyawēwin.
In the above example, the verb stem used is for animate objects, while masinahikan “book” is inanimate. That is a proof that the 3rd person singular cross-reference on the verb does not refer to the book but to an animate recipient that is not overtly represented in the sentence.
Even though Plains Cree does not use morphological cases to distinguish agents
from patients, there is a form of nouns that can be classified as the locative
case (Case=Loc
). It clearly marks the noun as oblique and unable to be
cross-referenced by verbal inflection. The other, bare nominal forms, could
then be tagged as nominative (Case=Nom
), or, optionally, left with the Case
feature empty.
- Akocikanihk nikī-ahāwak nitastisak.
Adpositions may accompany the locative, too:
- Nikī-nīhtināw akocikanihk ohci.
TO DO: Discuss somewhere the layered features that are needed when multiple arguments are cross-referenced by verbal morphology. Try to standardize the layer names.
Can Adjectives Have Core Arguments?
Under certain circumstances, yes. One possibility is that the adjective is used as a non-verbal predicate, possibly with a copula.  PUNCT _ _ 5 punct _ _
Participles
may be tagged as either verbs or adjectives.
In both cases they retain certain features that are normally associated with
verbs. If a participle is derived from a transitive verb and tagged ADJ
,
we have an adjective with object:
[cs] Řidič opravující auto musí mít reflexní vestu.
It is unusual for a non-participial adjective to have a core object.  PUNCT _ _ 3 punct _ _
(At least this analysis occurs in UD English EWT 2.2. The putative object resembles objects of verbs in that it is obligatory and it is a bare nominal, without a preposition. However, it is still not treated as an object of a verb, and the clause is not transitive. There is no passivization pattern that would promote the object ($10) to the subject position, and remove the original subject (it).)
Attributively used adjectives (regardless whether they are participles or not) do not have subjects.
Related issues:
Can Adverbs Have Core Arguments?
Under certain circumstances, yes. One possibility is that the adverb is used as a non-verbal predicate (typically indicating a location), possibly with a copula.  PUNCT _ _ 4 punct _ _
Converbs
may be tagged as either verbs or adverbs.
In both cases they retain certain features that are normally associated with
verbs. If a converb is derived from a transitive verb and tagged ADV
,
we have an adverb with object.
Being non-finite forms, converbs do not have subjects.
There are currently no examples of adverbs that are not converbs and have objects.
Can Nouns Have Core Arguments?
No, with one exception. The noun may be used as a non-verbal predicate, possibly with a copula.  PUNCT _ _ 4 punct _ _
In this case, the subject John is not part of the same nominal phrase as teacher. It is the subject of the entire clause, whose predicate is teacher.
UD makes a clear distinction between modifiers of a nominal on one side,
and everything else on the other side. Even verbal nouns,
if they are tagged NOUN
and not VERB
, must have their modifiers attached via
relations reserved for modifiers of nouns.
For example, in [en] to take action, action is an object of to take (obj(take, action)
).
If the phrase is nominalized, the coding of the argument becomes oblique (requiring the
preposition of) but the relation is neither obj
nor obl
; it is nmod
:
[en] Taking of any action is prohibited.
# text = Taking of any action is prohibited.
1 Taking taking NOUN _ Number=Sing|VerbForm=Vnoun 6 nsubj:pass _ _
2 of of ADP _ _ 4 case _ _
3 any any DET _ PronType=Ind 4 det _ _
4 action action NOUN _ Number=Sing 1 nmod _ _
5 is be AUX _ Mood=Ind|Number=Sing|Person=3|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin 6 aux:pass _ _
6 prohibited prohibit VERB _ Tense=Past|VerbForm=Part 0 root _ SpaceAfter=No
7 . . PUNCT _ _ 6 punct _ _
Clausal Complements
So far we were dealing with nominal arguments. But sometimes an argument is realized as a clause. If it occurs in subject position, it is labeled as clausal subject.
TO DO: What does “subject position” mean in free word order languages? What other subject properties can be tested with clauses?
Otherwise it may be a clausal complement.
Unfortunately, the term is somewhat misleading. UD does not distinguish arguments from adjuncts
(in other words, complements from modifiers), at least not at the universal level.
What it does distinguish is core arguments from oblique arguments + adjuncts.
It is thus not sufficient that the clause fills a slot defined by the valency of the matrix verb,
i.e., that it is in some sense obligatory. We must require more. We must require that the clause
corresponds to a core argument, that is, obj
(or iobj
, at least in theory).
If it corresponds only to an oblique
argument (or an adjunct), it should be labeled as adverbial clause.
Consequently, clausal complements can depend on verbs but not on adjectives or adverbs
because the latter two normally do not have core objects.
If an adjective or adverb is modified by a clause, that clause must be advcl
.
Even if it fills an obligatory slot in the adjective/adverb’s valency frame.
(Analogically, if a clause complements a noun, it must be labeled as adnominal clause.)
Even clauses that alternate with direct nominal objects (and thus are labeled ccomp
)
often do not work the same way as their nominal counterparts. For instance, English
direct objects can be passivized, as in:
- Tell me the secret.
- The secret will be told (to me).
- I will be told the secret.
However, a clausal complement of the same verb does not passivize the same way. It needs an expletive subject instead:
- Tell me that you will come.
- It will be told (to me) that you will come.
- I will be told that you will come.
Note that UD does not distinguish direct and indirect clausal complements.
At present it is assumed that ccomp
alternates with obj
(direct object).
TO DO: Find Polish LFG examples where there are two ccomps in one sentence, one corresponding to obj and the other to iobj.
Summary of Relations
- nsubj — nominal subject, corresponding to the S function in intransitive clauses and to the A function in transitive clauses.
If some of the
nsubj
subtypes are used in the language, then the barensubj
denotes the remaining situations not covered by the subtypes.- nsubj:pass — nominal subject in a passive clause
- nsubj:caus — nominal subject in a causative clause
- obj — nominal object, corresponding to the P function in transitive clauses.
- iobj — nominal indirect object, one of two objects in ditransitive clauses, the one that is “less core-like” of the two.
If the two objects are equal in there core-likelihood, none of them is
iobj
. If some of theiobj
subtypes are used in the language, then the bareiobj
denotes the remaining situations not covered by the subtypes.- iobj:agent — true agent in a causative clause, if encoded as an indirect object.
- obl — nominal oblique argument or adjunct.
If some of the
obl
subtypes are used in the language, then the bareobl
denotes the remaining situations not covered by the subtypes.
TO DO: ccomp
, xcomp


Thank you for considering a donation to the author of Pro for Trello
Pro for Trello is a free Google Chrome extension. It will always be free. Whether you donate or not will not change that. But it sure as hell could make a difference.
If you're supercharging Trello on a daily basis with Pro for Trello you should consider making a symbolic donation since it's making your life easier. If you're using it for work and making money with the help of Pro for Trello features you should consider supporting further development.
Authors of free software often use paid tools and generally pay for a number of licenses on a monthly basis. Donating some money to their cause will simply motivate them to maintain, support and improve their free software, since even the smallest donation makes them feel like their work is being appreciated.
With that being said (or written, right?) anything from 10 to 50 EUR/USD will make a contribution. That doesn't mean the author would refuse a more considerable donation .
Of course! You get an honest "thank you" in the form of a personalized email message (if you provide your email) and a public "thanks" in Pro for Trello's About section and on author's personal website.
And that's not all! You get that special feeling of doing the right thing, just like when you do something good. It's an awesome feeling.
If you have a PayPal account, you can make a direct transfer to the author's PayPal account here.


Ping-Pong
Enter any number into the form and:
Numbers divisible by 3 will become "ping"
Numbers divisible by 5 will become "pong"
Numbers divisble by 3 and 5 will become "pingpong"
See your results
submit


About
This website is part of the course websoft course page on HKR website
1. Page design is an important part of website construction, so it must be treated with care. If you want to design an excellent page, you must plan well before designing.
2. Consider the details. After the basic structural layout is determined, start thinking about the details.
A representiv image for the course.