To determine which subjects are referred to by noun phrases such as "the table" or "a paper cup" found in assertion sentences.

• §1. How individual nouns are represented after refinement
• §4. The player is not yourself
• §5. Representation of single adjectives
• §7. Simple descriptions
• §8. Refining couplings
• §9. The refinery itself
• §12. About surgeries
• §14. Un-WITH

§1. How individual nouns are represented after refinement.

• (a) In general, noun phrases in the parse tree divide into "proper" and "common". Before refinement they generally have node type UNPARSED_NOUN_NT: afterwards, either PROPER_NOUN_NT or COMMON_NOUN_NT.
• (b) A noun phrase node has a "subject" annotation, identifying what if anything it refers to. For example, "a door" refers to the kind "door".
• (c) It also has an "evaluation" annotation. For example, "35" evaluates to the number 33, but has no subject.
• (d) If the noun phrase gives a number of items, the multiplicity annotation records how many; thus, for "six lorries" it would be 6.
• (e) If the noun phrase describes some properties or relations which must be true — "an open door", say, or "a woman in London" — these are recorded in a creation_proposition annotation.

void Refiner::give_subject_to_noun?Usage of Refiner::give_subject_to_noun:
§4, §7.1, §11.5.1, §11.7
The Creator - §4.4, §7.4, §7.4.1
Assemblies - §13(parse_node *p, inference_subject *infs) {
    parse_node *eval = InferenceSubjects::as_constant(infs);
    Make a common or proper noun as appropriate1.1;
}

void Refiner::give_spec_to_noun?Usage of Refiner::give_spec_to_noun:
§6, §11.8.2, §11.8.2.5
Define by Table Requests - §4.1.3, §4.2.3.1
The Creator - §4.4, §4.4.1.1
Relation Knowledge - §2
Tables - §23.1(parse_node *p, parse_node *eval) {
    inference_subject *infs = Specifications::to_subject(eval);
    Make a common or proper noun as appropriate1.1;
}

§1.1. Make a common or proper noun as appropriate1.1 =

    if (KindSubjects::to_kind(infs)) Node::set_type(p, COMMON_NOUN_NT);
    else Node::set_type(p, PROPER_NOUN_NT);
    Refiner::apply_description(p, eval);
    Node::set_subject(p, infs);
    Node::set_evaluation(p, eval);

• This code is used in §1 (twice).

§2. This can be performed either on noun or ADJECTIVE_NT nodes. It transfers the details of a description to the node.

void Refiner::apply_description?Usage of Refiner::apply_description:
§1.1, §5, §7.1(parse_node *p, parse_node *desc) {
    if (Specifications::is_description(desc)) {
        pcalc_prop *prop = Descriptions::get_quantified_prop(desc);
        Node::set_creation_proposition(p, Propositions::copy(prop));
        int N = Descriptions::get_quantification_parameter(desc);
        if (N > 0) Annotations::write_int(p, multiplicity_ANNOT, N);
    }
}

§3. It's useful to have a safe way of transferring the complete noun details from one node to another, without breaking the above invariant. (The nowhere annotation is used by the spatial feature, if active, and it probably never needs to be copied, but we do so for safety's sake.)

void Refiner::copy_noun_details?Usage of Refiner::copy_noun_details:
Tables - §26(parse_node *p_to, parse_node *p_from) {
    Node::set_type(p_to, Node::get_type(p_from));
    Node::set_evaluation(p_to, Node::get_evaluation(p_from));
    Node::set_creation_proposition(p_to, Node::get_creation_proposition(p_from));
    Node::set_subject(p_to, Node::get_subject(p_from));
    Annotations::write_int(p_to, multiplicity_ANNOT,
        Annotations::read_int(p_from, multiplicity_ANNOT));
    Annotations::write_int(p_to, nowhere_ANNOT,
        Annotations::read_int(p_from, nowhere_ANNOT));
    Annotations::write_int(p_to, creation_site_ANNOT,
        Annotations::read_int(p_from, creation_site_ANNOT));
}

§4. The player is not yourself. The following function handles a feature added to Inform to handle just one peculiarity of syntax: that the source text will often talk about "the player" to mean the instance which represents the player at the start of play (properly called "yourself"), not the variable whose value is the instance currently representing the player.

But no explicit mention of this case appears here; in theory any global variable can be set to shadow a spcific instance in this way.

int Refiner::turn_player_to_yourself?Usage of Refiner::turn_player_to_yourself:
Assertions - §6.3.13, §6.3.20, §6.3.25, §6.3.26, §6.3.29, §6.3.36, §6.3.37
Relation Knowledge - §3.1(parse_node *pn) {
    if ((Wordings::nonempty(Node::get_text(pn))) &&
        (Node::get_type(pn) == PROPER_NOUN_NT) &&
        (Annotations::read_int(pn, turned_already_ANNOT) == FALSE)) {
        nonlocal_variable *q = NonlocalVariables::parse_global(Node::get_text(pn));
        inference_subject *diversion = NonlocalVariables::get_alias(q);
        if (diversion) {
            Refiner::give_subject_to_noun(pn, diversion);
            Annotations::write_int(pn, turned_already_ANNOT, TRUE);
            return TRUE;
        }
    }
    return FALSE;
}

§5. Representation of single adjectives. Individual adjective nodes are made as follows. Note that we append noun details to the nodes so that sentences like this one...

Scenery is usually fixed in place.

...can work; here "scenery", though an adjective, is effectively a common noun in disguise. (It's a deficiency of English that a surprising number of common objects, which ought to have count nouns, in fact have mass nouns — compare "clothing" and "clothes", which has no adequate singular.)

void Refiner::pn_make_adjective?Usage of Refiner::pn_make_adjective:
§7.3(parse_node *p, unary_predicate *ale, parse_node *spec) {
    Node::set_type(p, ADJECTIVE_NT);
    Node::set_predicate(p, ale);
    Node::set_evaluation(p, NULL);
    Refiner::apply_description(p, spec);
}

§6. A different reason why adjective and nouns overlap is due to words like "green", which describe a state and also suggest that something possesses it. Context sometimes causes us to consider an adjective as a noun instead, though only if it has a positive sense and has a nominal meaning.

int Refiner::nominalise_adjective?Usage of Refiner::nominalise_adjective:
Assertions - §6.3.22, §6.3.26, §6.3.29, §6.3.42
Property Knowledge - §3.4
Relation Knowledge - §3.1(parse_node *p) {
    if ((p) && (Node::get_type(p) == ADJECTIVE_NT)) {
        unary_predicate *pred = Node::get_predicate(p);
        if (AdjectivalPredicates::parity(pred) == TRUE) {
            instance *q = AdjectiveAmbiguity::has_enumerative_meaning(
                AdjectivalPredicates::to_adjective(pred));
            if (q) Refiner::give_spec_to_noun(p, Rvalues::from_instance(q));
        }
    }
    if ((p) && (Node::get_type(p) == PROPER_NOUN_NT)) return TRUE;
    return FALSE;
}

§7. Simple descriptions. For a precise definition see Descriptions (in values), but roughly speaking a "simple" description is one with only adjectives and perhaps a head noun: thus "closed" and "a closed lockable door" are simple, but "four women in a lighted room" is complex.

The following function should be called only on a simple description. It turns the node p into a subtree representing the content of that simple description in desc.

Depending on the circumstances, we get a subtree in which the headword if any is represented by an COMMON_NOUN_NT node (where the headword is a kind of object) or a PROPER_NOUN_NT (where the headword is a specific object), and where the adjectives each become ADJECTIVE_NT nodes.

void Refiner::refine_from_simple_description?Usage of Refiner::refine_from_simple_description:
§11.8.2.5.1
Assemblies - §8.3(parse_node *p, parse_node *desc) {
    inference_subject *head = NULL;
    Set the attachment node to the headword, if there is one7.1;
    if (Descriptions::number_of_adjectives_applied_to(desc) > 0) {
        if (head) Insert a WITH node joining adjective tree to headword7.2;
        Place a subtree of adjectives at the attachment node7.3;
    }
}

§7.1. Crucially, the headword node gets one extra annotation: its "full phrase evaluation", which retains the original description information — in particular, quantification data such as that in "four doors", which would be lost if we simply applied Refiner::give_subject_to_noun to the inference subject for "door".

If head is not set, it doesn't matter what we do, because there'll be no headword node — this is why we don't bother to find any subject to set for it.

Set the attachment node to the headword, if there is one7.1 =

    if (Descriptions::to_instance(desc)) {
        head = Instances::as_subject(Descriptions::to_instance(desc));
        if (head) {
            Refiner::give_subject_to_noun(p, head);
            Refiner::apply_description(p, desc);
        }
    } else if (Descriptions::makes_kind_explicit(desc)) {
        kind *K = Specifications::to_kind(desc);
        head = KindSubjects::from_kind(K);
        Refiner::give_subject_to_noun(p, head);
        Node::set_evaluation(p, Specifications::from_kind(K));
        Refiner::apply_description(p, desc);
    }

• This code is used in §7.

§7.2. We put a WITH node in the attachment position, displacing the headword content to its first child, and making its second child the new attachment position — so that that is where the adjectives subtree will go.

Insert a WITH node joining adjective tree to headword7.2 =

    parse_node *lower_copy = Node::new(PROPER_NOUN_NT);
    Node::copy(lower_copy, p);
    Node::set_type(p, WITH_NT);
    p->down = lower_copy;
    lower_copy->next = Node::new(PROPER_NOUN_NT);
    p = lower_copy->next;

• This code is used in §7.

§7.3. When there are two or more adjectives, they must occur as leaves of a binary tree whose non-leaf nodes are AND_NT. We do this pretty inefficiently, making no effort to balance the tree, since it has negligible effect on speed or memory.

Place a subtree of adjectives at the attachment node7.3 =

    int no_adjectives = Descriptions::number_of_adjectives_applied_to(desc);
    if (no_adjectives == 1) {
        Refiner::pn_make_adjective(p,
            Descriptions::first_unary_predicate(desc), desc);
    } else {
        Node::set_type_and_clear_annotations(p, AND_NT);
        unary_predicate *ale;
        int i = 0;
        parse_node *AND_p = p;
        pcalc_prop *ale_prop = NULL;
        LOOP_THROUGH_ADJECTIVE_LIST(ale, ale_prop, desc) {
            i++;
            parse_node *p3 = Node::new(ADJECTIVE_NT);
            Refiner::pn_make_adjective(p3, ale, desc);
            if (i < no_adjectives) {
                AND_p->down = p3;
                if (i+1 < no_adjectives) {
                    p3->next = Node::new(AND_NT);
                    AND_p = p3->next;
                }
            } else {
                AND_p->down->next = p3;
            }
        }
    }

• This code is used in §7.

§8. Refining couplings. When an assertion couples px and py, the following is called first to refine them.

int Refiner::refine_coupling?Usage of Refiner::refine_coupling:
Passes through Major Nodes - §3.1.2.3
Classifying Sentences - §7
Define by Table Requests - §4.1.3(parse_node *px, parse_node *py, int logging) {
    int pc = problem_count;
    Refiner::un_with(px);
    Refiner::un_with(py);
    Refiner::refine(px, ALLOW_CREATION);
    Refiner::refine(py, ALLOW_CREATION);
    if (problem_count > pc) return FALSE;
    if (logging) {
        LOG("Refined:\n"); LOG_INDENT;
        LOG("$T", px);
        LOG("$T", py);
        LOG_OUTDENT;
    }
    if (Assertions::Creator::consult_the_creator(px, py) == FALSE) return FALSE;
    return TRUE;
}

§9. The refinery itself. Time to get started, then. Each subtree can be refined only once.

The creation_rule can have three values:

define FORBID_CREATION 0  never create an object with this name
define ALLOW_CREATION 1  create an object with this name if that looks sensible
define MANDATE_CREATION 2  always create an object with this name, except for "it"

§10.

int forbid_nowhere = FALSE;
void Refiner::refine?Usage of Refiner::refine:
§8, §11.1, §11.2, §11.3, §11.4, §11.5, §11.6
New Property Requests - §5
Calculus Utilities - §8.1(parse_node *p, int creation_rule) {
    if (p == NULL) internal_error("Refine parse tree on null pn");
    if (Annotations::read_int(p, refined_ANNOT)) return;
    Annotations::write_int(p, refined_ANNOT, TRUE);
    VerbPhrases::corrective_surgery(p);

    LOGIF(NOUN_RESOLUTION, "Refine subtree (%s creation):\n$T",
        ((creation_rule == FORBID_CREATION)?"forbid":
            ((creation_rule == ALLOW_CREATION)?"allow":"mandate")), p);
    LOG_INDENT;

    Refiner::refine_parse_tree_inner(p, creation_rule);

    LOG_OUTDENT;
    LOGIF(NOUN_RESOLUTION, "Refined subtree is:\n$T", p);
}

§11. What we do depends on the crude structure already found.

void Refiner::refine_parse_tree_inner?Usage of Refiner::refine_parse_tree_inner:
§10(parse_node *p, int creation_rule) {
    switch(Node::get_type(p)) {
        case X_OF_Y_NT: Refine an X-of-Y subtree11.1; return;
        case WITH_NT: Refine an X-with-Y subtree11.2; return;
        case AND_NT: Refine an X-and-Y subtree11.3; return;
        case RELATIONSHIP_NT: Refine a relationship subtree11.5; return;
        case CALLED_NT: Refine a calling subtree11.4; return;
        case KIND_NT: Refine a kind subtree11.6; return;
        case PRONOUN_NT: Refine a pronoun11.7; return;
        case PROPER_NOUN_NT:
        case UNPARSED_NOUN_NT: Refine what seems to be a noun phrase11.8; return;
    }
}

§11.1. Recall that an X_OF_Y_NT subtree has the form owner followed by property name, so we forbid creation of a new object from the property name subtree.

Refine an X-of-Y subtree11.1 =

    Refiner::refine(p->down, creation_rule);
    Refiner::refine(p->down->next, FORBID_CREATION);

• This code is used in §11.

§11.2. WITH_NT is used to create something with a list of properties. This leads to some awkward cases — for instance, where a "with" in an action pattern like "doing something with the bucket" has been misinterpreted. We fix those cases by hand, by reconstructing the text before it was divided, then parsing it as an action pattern; if that works, that reading is allowed to stand.

Refine an X-with-Y subtree11.2 =

    Refiner::refine(p->down, creation_rule);
    Refiner::perform_with_surgery(p);
    if (Node::get_type(p) == WITH_NT) {
        #ifdef IF_MODULE
        wording W = Wordings::new(Wordings::first_wn(Node::get_text(p->down)),
            Wordings::last_wn(Node::get_text(p->down->next)));
        if (Wordings::nonempty(W)) {
            if (<action-pattern>(W)) {
                ActionsNodes::convert_to_ACTION_node(p, <<rp>>);
                Node::set_text(p, W);
            }
        }
        #endif
    }

• This code is used in §11.

§11.3. AND_NT is easy, except for "and surgery", of which more below.

Refine an X-and-Y subtree11.3 =

    Refiner::refine(p->down, creation_rule);
    Refiner::refine(p->down->next, creation_rule);
    Refiner::perform_and_surgery(p);

• This code is used in §11.

§11.4. A CALLED_NT node has two children: in the phrase "an X called Y", they will represent X and Y respectively. Y must be created afresh whatever its name, since the whole point of "called" is that it enables the designer to use names which would otherwise be interpreted as meaning something significant: it is a sort of literal escape, like the backslash character in C strings. X is never something new: it is expected to be a kind. We convert the whole node into a simple PROPER_NOUN_NT with the name of Y and the kind of X. In this way, all CALLED_NT nodes are removed from the tree.

Refine a calling subtree11.4 =

    Refiner::refine(p->down, FORBID_CREATION);
    if (Annotations::read_int(p->down, multiplicity_ANNOT) > 1) {
        StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(PM_MultipleCalled),
            "I can only make a single 'called' thing at a time",
            "or rather, the 'called' is only allowed to apply to one thing "
            "at a time. For instance, 'A thing called a vodka and tonic is "
            "on the table.' is allowed, but 'Two things called vodka and tonic' "
            "is not.");
    }
    forbid_nowhere = TRUE;
    if (creation_rule == FORBID_CREATION)
        StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(BelievedImpossible),
            "'called' can't be used in this context",
            "and is best reserved for full sentences.");
    else Refiner::refine(p->down->next, MANDATE_CREATION);
    forbid_nowhere = FALSE;

• This code is used in §11.

§11.5. A RELATIONSHIP_NT node may have no children, representing "here"; or it may have one child, a room or door which lies in some map direction. But in general it has two children: for instance "a green marble in a blue box" has the marble and the box as its children, the relationship being containment.

Refine a relationship subtree11.5 =

    if (p->down) {
        Refiner::refine(p->down, creation_rule);
        #ifdef IF_MODULE
        instance *dir = MapRelations::get_mapping_relationship(p);
        if (dir) Make the relation one which refers to a map direction11.5.1;
        #endif
        if (p->down->next) Refiner::refine(p->down->next, creation_rule);
    }

• This code is used in §11.

§11.5.1. This handles the case of a one-child node representing a map direction, but fills in a second child as the direction object in question. Thus if the relation is mapped-north-of, then the second child will become the direction object for "north".

Make the relation one which refers to a map direction11.5.1 =

    LOGIF(NOUN_RESOLUTION, "Directional predicate with BP from $O\n", dir);
    wording DW = Instances::get_name(dir, FALSE);
    p->down->next = Diagrams::new_UNPARSED_NOUN(DW);
    Refiner::give_subject_to_noun(p->down->next, Instances::as_subject(dir));
    Annotations::write_int(p->down->next, refined_ANNOT, TRUE);

• This code is used in §11.5.

§11.6. A KIND_NT node may have no children, and if so it represents the bare word "kind": the reference must be to the kind "kind" itself. Otherwise it has one child — the name of an existing kind of value or object. After refinement, it will be annotated with a valid non-null inference subject representing the domain to which any new kind would belong.

Refine a kind subtree11.6 =

    inference_subject *kind_of_what = KindSubjects::from_kind(K_object);
    if (p->down) {
        parse_node *what = p->down;
        Refiner::refine(what, FORBID_CREATION);
        kind_of_what = Node::get_subject(what);
    }
    if ((kind_of_what == NULL) || (KindSubjects::to_kind(kind_of_what) == NULL))
        Issue a problem message for a kind of instance11.6.1;
    if ((KindSubjects::to_nonobject_kind(kind_of_what)) &&
        (kind_of_what != KindSubjects::from_kind(K_value)) &&
        (kind_of_what != KindSubjects::from_kind(K_object)))
            Issue a problem message for a disallowed subkind11.6.2;
    Node::set_subject(p, kind_of_what);

• This code is used in §11.

§11.6.1. Issue a problem message for a kind of instance11.6.1 =

    if ((InferenceSubjects::is_an_object(kind_of_what)) ||
        (InferenceSubjects::is_a_kind_of_object(kind_of_what))) {
        StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(PM_KindOfInstance),
            "kinds can only be made from other kinds",
            "so 'a kind of container' is allowed but 'a kind of Mona Lisa' (where "
            "Mona Lisa is a specific thing you've already made), wouldn't be "
            "allowed. There is only one Mona Lisa.");
        kind_of_what = KindSubjects::from_kind(K_object);
    } else {
        StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(PM_KindOfActualValue),
            "I don't recognise that as a kind",
            "such as 'room' or 'door': it would need to be straightforwardly the name "
            "of a kind, and not be qualified with adjectives like 'open'.");
        kind_of_what = KindSubjects::from_kind(K_value);
    }

• This code is used in §11.6.

§11.6.2. Issue a problem message for a disallowed subkind11.6.2 =

    StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(PM_KindOfExotica),
        "you are only allowed to create kinds of objects (things, rooms, and "
        "so on) and kinds of 'value'",
        "so for example 'colour is a kind of value' is allowed but 'prime is "
        "a kind of number' is not.");
    kind_of_what = KindSubjects::from_kind(K_value);

• This code is used in §11.6.

§11.7. The following could clearly be improved.

Refine a pronoun11.7 =

    pronoun_usage *pro = Node::get_pronoun(p);
    if (pro) {
        if (pro->pronoun_used == here_pronoun) {
            Node::set_type(p, RELATIONSHIP_NT);
            p->down = Diagrams::new_PRONOUN(Node::get_text(p), pro);
            return;
        }
        if (pro->pronoun_used == implied_pronoun) {
            PluginCalls::refine_implicit_noun(p);
            return;
        }
        Node::set_type(p, PROPER_NOUN_NT);
        if ((Stock::usage_might_be_singular(pro->usage) == FALSE) &&
            (Anaphora::get_current_subject_plurality())) {
            StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(PM_EnigmaticThey),
                "I'm unable to handle 'they' here",
                "since it looks as if it needs to refer to more than one "
                "object here, and that's something I can't manage.");
            return;
        }
        inference_subject *referent = Anaphora::get_current_object();
        if (referent) Refiner::give_subject_to_noun(p, referent);
        else {
            StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(PM_EnigmaticPronoun),
                "I'm not sure what to make of the pronoun here",
                "since it is unclear what previously mentioned thing "
                "is being referred to. In general, it's best only to use "
                "'it' where it's unambiguous, and it may be worth noting "
                "that 'they' is not allowed to stand for more than one "
                "object at a time.");
            return;
        }
        LOGIF(PRONOUNS, "Interpreting 'it' as $j\n$P", referent, current_sentence);
        return;
    } else internal_error("misconstrued pronoun");

• This code is used in §11.

§11.8. The simple description of what happens to a PROPER_NOUN_NT node is that if it's an existing object or value, then it should be annotated with a reference to that object or value; and if not, then a new object should be created with that name. (We don't actually create here, though: we just mark such a noun phrase by changing its node type to CREATED_NT.) The more complicated description is as follows:

Refine what seems to be a noun phrase11.8 =

    Node::set_type(p, PROPER_NOUN_NT);
    if (forbid_nowhere == FALSE)
        Act on any special noun phrases significant to plugins11.8.1;

    if (creation_rule != MANDATE_CREATION)
        Interpret this as an existing noun if possible11.8.2;

    if (creation_rule != FORBID_CREATION) Node::set_type(p, CREATED_NT);
    else Node::set_subject(p, NULL);

• This code is used in §11.

§11.8.1. For example, "above" and "below" become significant if the mapping feature is active, and "nowhere" if the spatial one is.

Act on any special noun phrases significant to plugins11.8.1 =

    if (PluginCalls::act_on_special_NPs(p)) return;

• This code is used in §11.8.

§11.8.2. Interpret this as an existing noun if possible11.8.2 =

    parse_node *spec = NULL;
    Parse the noun phrase as a value property name11.8.2.1;
    if (spec == NULL) Parse the noun phrase as a value11.8.2.3;
    if ((Node::is(spec, NONLOCAL_VARIABLE_NT)) ||
        (Node::is(spec, CONSTANT_NT))) {
        Refiner::give_spec_to_noun(p, spec);
        return;
    }
    if (Specifications::is_description(spec))
        Act on a description used as a noun phrase11.8.2.5;
    Act on an action pattern used as a noun phrase11.8.2.4;

• This code is used in §11.8.

§11.8.2.1. Perhaps it is the name of a valued property? If so, it is used as a noun, without obvious reference to any owner: we convert it to a noun node.

(This is the next priority so that "description" will be read as its property name meaning, not as the name of a kind of value.)

Parse the noun phrase as a value property name11.8.2.1 =

    if (<value-property-name>(Node::get_text(p)))
        spec = Rvalues::from_property(<<rp>>);

• This code is used in §11.8.2.

§11.8.2.2.1. Issue PM_VagueVariable problem11.8.2.2.1 =

    StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(PM_VagueVariable),
        "'variable' is too vague a description",
        "because it doesn't say what kind of value should go into the variable. "
        "'number variable' or 'a number that varies' - whatever kind of value you "
        "need - would be much clearer.");
    ==> { FALSE, - };

• This code is used in §11.8.2.2.

§11.8.2.2. When a noun phrase in an assertion represents a value, it's normally a constant ("13") or else something like a description of values ("a number"). It wouldn't make sense to refer to a temporary value like a local variable, but a global ("player" or "time of day") is possible.

The "action of taking something" syntax is provided as a way of escaping the usual handling of action patterns; it enables "taking something" to be a noun instead of a condition testing the current action.

<assertion-np-as-value> ::=
    variable |                         ==> Issue PM_VagueVariable problem11.8.2.2.1
    action of <s-explicit-action>   |  ==> { TRUE, RP[1] }
    <s-descriptive-type-expression> |  ==> { TRUE, RP[1] }
    <s-global-variable>                ==> { TRUE, RP[1] }

• This is Preform grammar, not regular C code.

§11.8.2.3. Parse the noun phrase as a value11.8.2.3 =

    if (<assertion-np-as-value>(Node::get_text(p))) {
        if (<<r>> == FALSE) return;
        spec = <<rp>>;
    } else {
        spec = Specifications::new_UNKNOWN(Node::get_text(p));
    }
    if (Descriptions::get_quantifier(spec))
        Check that this noun phrase is allowed a quantifier11.8.2.3.1;
    LOGIF(NOUN_RESOLUTION, "Noun phrase %W parsed as value: $P\n", Node::get_text(p), spec);

• This code is used in §11.8.2.

§11.8.2.3.1. Check that this noun phrase is allowed a quantifier11.8.2.3.1 =

    if (Quantifiers::can_be_used_in_assertions(Descriptions::get_quantifier(spec)) == FALSE) {
        LOG("$T\nSo $D\n", current_sentence, Specifications::to_proposition(spec));
        StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(PM_ComplexDeterminer),
            "complicated determiners are not allowed in assertions",
            "so for instance 'More than three people are in the Dining Room' "
            "or 'None of the containers is open' will be rejected. Only "
            "simple numbers will be allowed, as in examples like 'Three "
            "people are in the Dining Room.'");
        return;
    }
    if (Descriptions::get_quantifier(spec) == for_all_quantifier) {
        kind *K = Specifications::to_kind(spec);
        if ((K) &&
            (Descriptions::to_instance(spec) == NULL) &&
            (Descriptions::number_of_adjectives_applied_to(spec) == 0)) {
            Node::set_subject(p, KindSubjects::from_kind(K));
            Node::set_type(p, EVERY_NT);
            return;
        }
        StandardProblems::sentence_problem(Task::syntax_tree(), _p_(PM_ComplexEvery),
            "in an assertion 'every' or 'all' can only be used with a kind",
            "so for instance 'A coin is in every container' is all right, "
            "because 'container' is a kind, but not 'A coin is in every "
            "open container', because 'open container' is now a kind "
            "qualified by a property which may come or go during play. "
            "(This problem sometimes happens because a thing has been "
            "called something like an 'all in one survival kit' - if you "
            "need that sort of name, try using 'called' to set it.)");
        return;
    }

• This code is used in §11.8.2.3.

§11.8.2.4. If the noun phrase is a valid action pattern, such as "taking something", we change it to a new node type to mark this. We don't keep the pattern: it will be reparsed much later on.

We have to be a little cautious, because of the way English allows participles as nouns to mean the result of some action having taken place on something — consider "the scoring", for instance, in the sense of a mark scored on a piece of wood. So we parse action patterns with a lower priority than values here, given that we know we are looking for a noun.

Act on an action pattern used as a noun phrase11.8.2.4 =

    #ifdef IF_MODULE
    if (Node::get_article(p) == NULL) {
        if (<action-pattern>(Node::get_text(p))) {
            ActionsNodes::convert_to_ACTION_node(p, <<rp>>);
            return;
        }
    }
    #endif

• This code is used in §11.8.2.

§11.8.2.5. This case has been left to last, since it's so much the most difficult. Descriptions have to be converted into a surprising range of different subtrees — otherwise it will not be possible to issue a wide range of to-the-point problem messages for badly constructed sentences.

Oddly, it's not the complicated descriptions which give trouble...

Act on a description used as a noun phrase11.8.2.5 =

    Node::set_subject(p, NULL);
    if (Descriptions::is_complex(spec)) {
        Refiner::give_spec_to_noun(p, spec);
        return;
    }
    Act on a simple description11.8.2.5.1;

• This code is used in §11.8.2.

§11.8.2.5.1. ...it's the shorter phrases where, perversely, the risk of a misunderstanding is higher. For one thing, we deliberately ignore a valid description in two cases:

• (a) Adjective(s) followed by the name of a specific object.
• (b) An indefinite article followed by the name of a specific object.

For (a), see the example "Goat-Cheese and Sage Chicken". This contains a kettle which can be in several states, described adjectivally, and one of those is "heating". This means the S-parser reads "heating kettle" as if it meant "the kettle when in the heating state". But we don't want this to be recognised in an assertion, because it's not useful to talk about individual objects in particular states when setting up the initial state — the kettle either starts out as heating, or it doesn't. Moreover, we don't want to misread a line like:

Heating Kettle is a scene.

(also a sentence from "Goat-Cheese and Sage Chicken"). Because of this and similar ambiguities, we ignore the S-parser's recommendation of reading adjective(s) plus proper noun as a reference to that noun in a special state.

Case (b) comes out of a point of difference between proper and common nouns: use of an indefinite article is fine with common nouns — "a container", for example — but not with proper nouns: talking about "a silver bar" suggests that this is not the same silver bar referred to in some previous sentence.

Act on a simple description11.8.2.5.1 =

    if (!((Descriptions::to_instance(spec)) &&
        ((Descriptions::number_of_adjectives_applied_to(spec) > 0) ||
            (Articles::may_be_definite(Node::get_article(p)) == FALSE)))) {
        Refiner::refine_from_simple_description(p, spec);
        return;
    }

• This code is used in §11.8.2.5.

§12. About surgeries. The rest of this section is taken up with local surgical operations performed on the tree in the light of what we can now see.

"And surgery" is a fiddly operation to correct the parse tree after resolution of all the nouns in a phrase which involves both "and" and "with" in a particular way. There's no problem with either of these:

In the Pitch are a bat and ball with weight 10.

In the Pitch is a sweater with score for finding 5 and description "White wool."

neither of which is altered by and surgery. The difficulty arises with

In the Pitch is an openable and open door with description "The Hut door."

which, we notice, has exactly the same grammatical structure as the first of the two sentences above, yet a very different meaning, since "openable" is a property whereas "bat" was an object. We perform surgery on:

    AND_NT
        ADJECTIVE_NT "openable"
        WITH_NT
            COMMON_NOUN_NT "door"
            ADJECTIVE_NT "open"

to restructure the nodes as:

    WITH_NT
        COMMON_NOUN_NT "door"
        AND_NT
            ADJECTIVE_NT "openable"
            ADJECTIVE_NT "open"

This innocent-looking little function involved drawing a lot of diagrams on the back of an envelope. Change at your peril.

void Refiner::perform_and_surgery?Usage of Refiner::perform_and_surgery:
§11.3(parse_node *p) {
    parse_node *x, *a_p, *w_p, *p1_p, *p2_p, *i_p;
    if ((Node::get_type(p->down) == ADJECTIVE_NT)
        && (Node::get_type(p->down->next) == WITH_NT)) {
        a_p = p; p1_p = p->down; w_p = p->down->next;
        i_p = w_p->down; p2_p = i_p->next;

        Node::set_type(a_p, WITH_NT);
        Node::set_type_and_clear_annotations(w_p, AND_NT);
        Node::set_subject(a_p, Node::get_subject(w_p));
        Node::set_subject(w_p, NULL);
        x = a_p; a_p = w_p; w_p = x;

        w_p->down = i_p;
        i_p->next = a_p;
        a_p->down = p1_p;
        a_p->down->next = p2_p;
    }
}

§13. "With surgery" is a less traumatic operation, motivated by sentences like:

In the Pitch is an open container with description "The box of stumps and bails."

The initial parse tree for such a sentence will have two nested WITH_NT clauses, which is arguably correct — "a (container with property open) with description ..." — but which is inconvenient for our implementation of WITH_NT later on. So we construe the sentence instead with a single "with", as "a container with properties open and description ..." In terms of the tree,

    WITH_NT
        WITH_NT
            COMMON_NOUN_NT "container"
            ADJECTIVE_NT "open"
        PROPERTY_LIST_NT "The box..."

is reconstructed as:

    WITH_NT
        COMMON_NOUN_NT "container"
        AND_NT
            ADJECTIVE_NT "open"
            PROPERTY_LIST_NT "The box..."

void Refiner::perform_with_surgery?Usage of Refiner::perform_with_surgery:
§11.2(parse_node *p) {
    parse_node *inst, *prop_1, *prop_2;
    if ((Node::get_type(p) == WITH_NT) && (Node::get_type(p->down) == WITH_NT)) {
        inst = p->down->down;
        prop_1 = p->down->down->next;
        prop_2 = p->down->next;
        p->down = inst;
        p->down->next = Node::new(AND_NT);
        p->down->next->down = prop_1;
        p->down->next->down->next = prop_2;
    }
}

§14. Un-WITH. We may subsequently learn that what appeared to be a property setting was actually some other noun phrase containing the word "with" — a particular issue for sentences like:

The agreeing with policy action has an object called the hat.

void Refiner::un_with?Usage of Refiner::un_with:
§8(parse_node *p) {
    if ((Node::get_type(p) == WITH_NT) && (p->down) && (p->down->next)) {
        wording W = Wordings::up_to(Node::get_text(p->down),
            Wordings::last_wn(Node::get_text(p->down->next)));
        parse_node *ap = Lexicon::retrieve(MISCELLANEOUS_MC, W);
        if (Rvalues::is_CONSTANT_of_kind(ap, K_action_name)) {
            Node::set_type_and_clear_annotations(p, UNPARSED_NOUN_NT);
            Node::set_text(p, W);
            p->down = NULL;
        }
    }
}