Arg0:receiver
Arg1:thing gotten
Arg2:received from
Arg3:price, in exchange for
Arg4:attribute of arg1
basic (-) | |
---|---|
| |
Arg0: | Edison customers |
REL: | receive |
Arg1: | electric service |
ArgM-TMP: | since April 1985 |
as exchange (-) | |
---|---|
| |
Arg0: | Stockholders |
REL: | receive |
Arg1: | one Cray Computer share |
Arg3: | for every two Cray Research shares they own |
ArgM-LOC: | in a distribution |
with giver (-) | |
---|---|
| |
Arg0: | Anyone |
ArgM-MOD: | can |
REL: | receive |
Arg1: | more than $10k in cash |
Arg2-from: | a client |
Argm-LOC: | in one or more related transactions |
with attribute (-) | |
---|---|
| |
Arg0: | The company |
Argm-neg: | n't |
Argm-tmp: | yet |
REL: | receive |
Arg1: | any documents |
Arg2-from: | OSHA |
Arg4: | regarding the penalty or fine. |
another attribute (-) | |
---|---|
| |
Arg0: | Georgia Gulf |
REL: | received |
Arg1: | a new takeover bid |
Arg2-from: | investor Harold Simmons |
Arg4-of: | $50 million a share |
The attribute argument is necessary because of the way Treebank divides the constituent. Really, the arg1 of each of the two sentences above are 'any documents regarding the penalty or fine' and 'a new takeover bid of $50 million a share', but the 'giver' argument intervenes between the two, necessitating the additional argument.