{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/UniversalDependencies/UD_English/issues/9","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/UniversalDependencies/UD_English","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/UniversalDependencies/UD_English/issues/9/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/UniversalDependencies/UD_English/issues/9/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/UniversalDependencies/UD_English/issues/9/events","html_url":"https://github.com/UniversalDependencies/UD_English/issues/9","id":132697644,"number":9,"title":"\"nsubj\" in existential clauses","user":{"login":"interrogator","id":10471132,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10471132?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator","html_url":"https://github.com/interrogator","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/interrogator/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2016-02-10T13:16:55Z","updated_at":"2016-02-10T13:16:55Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I'm having trouble with what I see as an inconsistency in the definition and application of the `nsubj` label. It is explicitly defined [here](http://universaldependencies.org/docs/u/dep/all.html):\r\n\r\n    \"A nominal subject is a nominal phrase which is the syntactic subject of a clause\".\r\n\r\nIn existential clauses, however, the existent is also labelled as `nsubj`, as in the example:\r\n\r\n    There is a ghost in the room\r\n    nsubj(is, ghost)\r\n\r\nSurely `There` is the (albeit dummy) syntactic subject in an existential construction. `ghost` certainly doesn't fit the `nsubj` definition. Is the label definition up-to-date and justifiable?\r\n\r\nI suppose the problem is that `ghost` doesn't fit the definition for `dobj` either:\r\n\r\n    The direct object of a verb is the noun phrase that denotes the entity acted upon.\r\n\r\nThis is perhaps a bigger problem though, where some label definitions are syntactic, some semantic, and some a mixture of both."}}