so ADJ that ADVCL

[amir-zeldes]

There is only one case of "so ADJ that ADVCL" annotated as such in the corpus:

• seeing you so relaxed that you are sleeping/advcl will send the message that everything is OK

http://match.grew.fr/?corpus=UD_English-EWT@2.7&custom=5fb5361c6ef6b&eud=yes

But there are a few more which I think are incorrectly annotated as ccomp:

Some of these are false positives (adjectives introducing direct speech etc.), but a few have the same structure as the case above, for example:

• Everyone was so helpful that I cannot wait/ccomp to go back ..... (should be be advcl?)

http://match.grew.fr/?corpus=UD_English-EWT@2.7&custom=5fb5353b66cc8&eud=yes

[nschneid]

Agreed, advcl seems sensible for clauses licensed by "so" (the degree-consequence construction).

"that" isn't actually required, so here's a broader query:

http://match.grew.fr/?corpus=UD_English-EWT@2.7&custom=5fb537e7b3d81&eud=yes

e.g. these demons are so GREEDY, they want as much of their "product" as they can get

I didn't find any "enough" + ccomp examples.

[amir-zeldes]

Good point, just ran that search on GUM and corrected cases without "that" (see amir-zeldes/gum@81ee754 )

[manning]

I agree that ccomp is wrong and advcl would be right!

[nschneid]

Also: UniversalDependencies/docs#672

[nschneid]

Updated queries:

• EWT "so" + ccomp: changing some of these to advcl
• EWT "so" + advcl

[nschneid]

• EWT "so" taking an advcl dependent: the subordinate clause should attach to the degree-qualified adjective or adverb, not "so"