{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0457516339869281, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008986928104575163, 'mean_word_length': 4.805687203791469, '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}}
Lappin Shalom , ed. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 1996. Pp. xv + 670. US$79.95 (hardcover)

use in Algonquian linguistics. The "Agreement" relationships interact intimately with the "Obviative" dimension, revealing a neat explication of a syntax which sometimes appears clearly subject-object oriented and at other times resembles the ergative languages. Dryer then discusses the relationship between Agreement-A's, -B's, and -C's and the semantic roles Agent, Patient, etc. This leads into an explanation of the inverse construction, a sort of passive construction in which an Agreement-A (subject-like argument) is obligatory. So if Agreement-A's had been called "noun" and "subject" way back in the beginning, one would have a real problem explaining this passive-like construction. But since those loaded terms do not occur in this analysis the explanation is, if not exactly clear, at least not impossibly muddied. All in all, this is a refreshing look at the problem of describing the grammatical relations in a language. It reminds us of the difficulties out there, and warns us not to become wedded to "big picture" terminology before we know where our data fits into that picture.