{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0321285140562249, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006693440428380187, 'mean_word_length': 4.984, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Can we put event nominals to rest? (Syntax)

It has been argued for English (e.g., Grimshaw (1990)) that nouns fall into at three different categories: complex event nominals, result nominals, and concrete nouns. In this paper I will present a construction centered on what appear to be event-denoting nouns. A syntactic and semantic analysis of this construction will call into question the strict categorization given above, and additionally pose questions for the richness of lexical semantic representation and restrictions on the mapping from semantic structure to syntactic structure. The verb put has a use in English that looks remarkably like a (causative) light verb. The basic syntactic frame in which it appears is demonstrated in (1).