As described in Infinitive Clauses, infinitive clauses are analyzed with a supersense if and only if they serve as a purpose adjunct, or in certain purpose-related constructions (result; complement of entity-referring indefinite pronoun; commercial service; that which something is good or bad for, or sufficient or excessive for). The special label `i is reserved for all other uses of infinitival to, as well as for whenever it introduces the subject of an infinitive clause.1
Infinitivals warranting `i include:
I would_like to try the fish. [would_like is a polite alternative to want] 002
You have an opportunity to succeed. [complement of noun] 004
I’m glad to hear you’re engaged! [complement of emotion adjective] 006
It’s impossible to get an appointment. [infinitival as NP, with cleft] 010
I have nothing to hide. [complement of indefinite pronoun] 012
I have something to do. [complement of indefinite pronoun that doesn't refer to an entity] 015
Multiword auxiliaries—such as quasi-modals have_to ‘must’, ought_to ‘should’, etc., as well as have_yet_to—subsume the infinitival to, so no label on to is required:
Whenever for introduces a subject of an infinitival clause, the for token is labeled `i (regardless of whether to receives a semantic label; see Infinitive Clauses):
Essentially, our position is that these uses of infinitivals are more like syntactically core elements (subject, object) than obliques, and thus should be excluded from semantic annotation under the present scheme. ↩
usages | metadata.UsageRevision.None |
---|---|
ptoken_with_construal | metadata.PTokenAnnotation.None |
role | None |
function | None |
special | `i |