Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Mermaid Constructions in Lexical Functional
Grammar
Chihiro Taguchi
University of Edinburgh, MSc by Research in Linguistics
Nara Institute of Science and Technology, MA in Information Engineeringhttps://chipewyan.github.io

July 14, 2022

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

OutlineIntroduction
Descriptive Analysis
LFG Analysis
Exception
Conclusion

Exception

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Mermaid Constructions in LFG
Objectives• Explain Mermaid Constructions (MC) in LFG• (Theory-neutral) objection to Tsunoda (2020)’s monoclausal analysis• MCs are raising/equi with a nominal predicate• MCs are biclausal• Integrate MC with the account of anaphoric/functional control in LFG

Points• Provide descriptive data for the counterargument• Use syntactic diagnostics• Apply to LFG’s c/f/s-structures

Changes from the draft• raising + equi
• added semantic analysis

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

Mermaid Constructions
Coined by Tsunoda (20111 , 20122 , 20203 )Structure (by Tsunoda 2020)[ NSUBJ ... V ]Clause + NMC + (Copula)4• Tsunoda’s analysis: V and NMC compose a compound predicate• thus MC is monoclausal: NSUBJ ... [ V + N + (Copula) ]CompPred

Examples(1) Japanese (< Japonic; SOV)
Hanako=ga Oranda=ni
ik-u
Hanako=NOM

yotei=da

Netherlands=DAT go-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to go to the Netherlands.’
ADN : adnominal, NPST: non-past

1 Tsunoda Tasaku. “Ningyo koubun: nihongogaku kara ippan gengogaku he no kouken”. In: NINJAL Research Papers 1 (2011), pp. 53–75.
2 Tasaku Tsunoda. “Ningyo koubun to meisi no bunpouka”. In: NINJAL Project Review 7 (2012), pp. 3–11.
3 Tasaku Tsunoda. Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics.
Mouton de Gruyter, 2020.
4 The actual order is subject to language-specific word order.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Examples (contd.)(2) Irabu (< Miyako < Ryukyuan < Japonic; SOV)5
kai=ga=du sac=n idi-r
kutu
3SG = NOM = FOC first=DAT go_out-NPST. ADN thing‘S(he) should go first’(3) Korean (< Koreanic; SOV)6
chinkwu=nun ilpon=ey ka-lfriend=TOP

yeyceng=i-ta

Japan=DAT go-ADN . PROS plan=COP - DECL‘(My) friend is going to Japan’(4) Amdo Tibetan (< Tibeto-Burman < Sino-Tibetan; SOV)7
aréa=k@ nor ptsoN-éu
ntCh arý@ rE
father=ERG yaksell.IPFV- NMLZ . GEN plan

COP. B‘(My) father plans to sell yaks’
B : pattern B (see Ebihara 2020), DECL : declarative, NMLZ: nominalizer, PROS : prospective

5 Michinori Shimoji. “Irabu Ryukyuan”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by
Tasaku Tsunoda. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.
6 Joungmin Kim. “Korean”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda.
Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.
7 Shiho Ebihara. “Amdo Tibetan”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by
Tasaku Tsunoda. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 419–464.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Examples (contd.)(5) Burmese (< Tibeto-Burman < Sino-Tibetan; SOV)8”tù dì híð=gò sá=dÊ póuð(=bÉ)
3 SG this curry=KO eat=ADN shape(=EMP)‘(S)he seems to have eaten this curry’(6) Kurukh (< Northern Dravidian < Dravidian; SOV)9
a:s-hi:tamba-s-in
ilc-ka:caããe: rahc-a:
3 SG . M - GEN own.father-M - ACC fear.PS - PST. VADJ necessity

COP. PS - PST.3 SG . NM

‘It was because he was afraid of his father’(7) Sidaama (< Cushitic < Afro-Asiatic; SOV)10íse
faraššó
guluf-f-annó
gara-a=ti
3 SG . F. NOM horse.ACCOBL ride-3 SG . F - IPFV.3 manner-LV = NPC . PRED . MOD‘She seems to ride a horse (habitually)’
ACCOBL — Accusative-Oblique, EMP — emphasis, KO — kò/gò (see Kato 2020), LV — lengthened vowel, MOD — modified, NM — non-masculine,
NPC — nominalized predicate clitic, PRED — predicative, PS — past stem, VADJ — verbal adjective

8 Atsuhiko Kato. “Burmese”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda.
Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.
9 Masato Kobayashi and Tasaku Tsunoda. “Kurux”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance.
Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.
10 Kazuhiro Kawachi. “Sidaama”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by
Tasaku Tsunoda. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

Examples (contd.)(8) Tagalog < Malayo-Polynesian < Austronesian; VSO)11
plano ni=Noy na b‹um›isita sa=Davao bukas
plan

GEN =Noy

LK

visit‹AF : INF› OBL=Davao

tomorrow‘Noy plans to go to Davao tomorrow’(9) Bengali (< Indo-Iranian < Indo-European; SOV)12tar
kOth a.tokio=te jawar
3 SG . GEN Tokyo=LOC go.NMLZ . GEN word

‘It is planned that he s/he is going to Tokyo’(10) Tatar (< Kipchak < Turkic; SOV)13
siNa
joqla-rGa röxsät
2 SG . DAT sleep-INF

permission‘You are allowed to sleep.’
11 Masumi Katagiri. “Tagalog”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda.
Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.
12 Keisuke Huziwara. “A contrastive study of external adnominal clauses in Japanese and Bangla”. In: Bangabidya: International Journal of Bengal
Studies 10 (2018), pp. 358–367.
13 Chihiro Taguchi. “Mermaid Construction in Tatar”. In: Proceedings of the 162nd Conference of the Linguistic Society of Japan. 2021.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

Examples against the compound predicate analysis(11) Russian (< Slavic < Indo-European; SVO)
pora namuxodit’time

1 PL . DAT PF:talk:INF‘It is time for us to leave’(12) Welsh (< Celtic < Indo-European; VSO)
Rhaid i fi
godi’ngynnarrhaid
i fi godi
yn gynnar
necessity to 1 SG wake_up.INF in

early‘I need to wake up early’• NMC and V does not adjoin each other in these languages• How can they form a compound predicate?

Proposal• MC is anaphoric/functional control with a nominal predicate• MC does not involve a compound predicate• Therefore, MC is biclausal• MC can be analyzed in LFG just like other anaphoric/functional control

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Subject is in the matrix clause: Evidence 1• A comparison with the similar non-MC (14)• In (14), Hanako(=ga) is inside the modifier clause, so an additional
subject argument can be added in the matrix clause (otherwise pro).
• (13), in contrast, doesn’t allow it• the matrix subject is already occupied(13) Japanese (MC)(*kore=ga) Hanako=ga sakana=o yak-u
this=NOM

Hanako=NOM

fish=OBJ

yotei=dagrill-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to grill the fish.’(14) Japanese (non-MC)(kore=ga) [Hanako=ga sakana=o yak-u]
this=NOM

Hanako=NOM

fish=ACC

nioi=dagrill-PRS . ADN smell(N)=COP‘(This is) the smell that [comes from where] Hanako grills the fish.’Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Subject is in the matrix clause: Evidence 2• NOM - GEN alternation of a subject in relative clauses• RC (16): NOM - GEN alternation ✓• MC (15): NOM - GEN alternation ×• In MC, the subject is in the matrix clause(15) Japanese (MC)Hanako={ga/*no} sakana=o yak-u
Hanako=NOM /* GEN

fish=ACC

yotei=dagrill-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to grill the fish.’(16) Japanese (non-MC)[Hanako={ga/no} sakana=o yak-u]
Hanako=NOM / GEN

fish=ACC

nioi=dagrill-NPST. ADN smell(N)=COP‘(It is) the smell that [comes from where] Hanako grilss the fish.’Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

Subject is in the matrix clause: Evidence 3• Honorifics14 in Japanese: the referent is its subject (Matsumoto 1996)15• In (18) Hanako can agree with yotei: matrix subject• In (19) Hanako cannot agree with nioi: embedded subject• MC’s subject is in the matrix clause (agreeing with Tsunoda (2020))(17) Japanese (Hanako is honorified by the speaker)
Hanako=sama=ga sakana=o oyakininar-u
Hanako=HON = NOM

fish=ACC

grill:HON - NPST. DECL

‘Hanako grills the fish.’(18) Japanese (Hanako is honorified by the speaker)
Hanako=sama=ga sakana=o yak-u
go-yotei=daHanako=HON = NOM

fish=ACC

grill-NPST. ADN

HON -plan(N)= COP‘Hanako is going to grill the fish.’(19) Japanese (Hanako is honorified by the speaker)# Hanako=sama=ga sakana=o yak-u
Hanako=HON = NOM

fish=ACC

grill-NPST. ADN

o-nioi=da
HON -plan(N)= COP‘(It is) the smell that [comes from where] Hanako grills the fish.’
14 I thank Chen Xie (Oxford) for suggesting this diagnostic.
15 Yo Matsumoto. “Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion ‘Word’”. In: Studies in Japanese Linguistics series().

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Anaphoric/functional control analysis of MC• Observation: Subject of MC is in the matrix clause• Point: Some MCs are anaphoric control like (20), others are functional
control like (21)• Intuition: MCs function as modals, evidentials, aspects, and attitudes,
just like verbs and adjectives of anaphoric/functional control• In this section, syntactic diagnostics for anaphoric/functional areapplied to MCs• Passivization• Idiom chunks(20) Japanese (anaphoric control)
Hanako=gai [PROi taroo=o tatak-u]
Hanako=NOM

PRO

ki=da

Taro=ACC hit-NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Hanako intends to hit Taro.’(21) Japanese (functional control)
Hanako=gai [ti taroo=o tatak-u]
Hanako=NOM

yotei=da

Taro=ACC hit-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to hit Taro.’

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

Syntactic tests: Passivization• Functional control (22), (23): passivization does not change thematic
relation• Anaphoric control (24), (25): passivization does change thematic
relation(22) a.
b.

Tom seems to hit Jerry.
Jerry seems to be hit by Tom.

(23) a.

Japanese (functional control)
Hanako=gai [ti taroo=o tatak-u]
Hanako=NOMb.

seem(hit(Tom, Jerry))seem(hit(Tom, Jerry))
yotei=da

Taro=ACC hit-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to hit Taro: planned(hit(h, t))’Japanese (functional control, passivized)
Taroo=gai [ti Hanako=ni tatak-are-ru]
yotei=da
Taro=NOM

Hanako=DAT

hit-PASS - NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Taro is going to be hit by Hanako: planned(hit(h, t))’• yotei shares a characteristic of a functional control predicate

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

Syntactic tests: Passivization• Functional control (22), (23): passivization does not change thematic
relation• Anaphoric control (24), (25): passivization does change thematic
relation(24) a.
b.

Tom tries to hit Jerry.
Jerry tries to be hit by Tom.

(25) a.

Japanese (anaphoric control)
Hanako=gai [PROi taroo=o tatak-u]
Hanako=NOM

PRO

Taro=ACC

try(Tom, hit(Tom, Jerry))try(Jerry, hit(Tom, Jerry))ki=dahit-NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Hanako intends to hit Taro: intend(h, hit(h, t))’b.

Japanese (anaphoric control, passivized)
Taroo=gai [PROi Hanako=ni tatak-are-ru]
Taro=NOMPRO

Hanako=DAT

ki=dahit-PASS - NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Taro intends to be hit by Hanako: intend(t, hit(h, t))’• ki shares a characteristic of an anaphoric control predicate

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Syntactic tests: Idiom chunks• Functional control (26 b), (27 b) keeps idiomatic meaning• Anaphoric control only allows for literal meaning(26) a.
b.

The cat is out of the bag. (i.e., the secret is revealed)
The cat seems to be out of the bag.

(27) a.

Japanese
asi=ga boo=ni nar-u
leg=NOMb.

stick=DAT

become-NPST‘The legs become sticks (i.e., exhausted)’
Japanese
asi=ga boo=ni nar-u
yotei=da
leg=NOM

stick=DAT

become-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘The legs are going to be sticks (i.e., exhausted)’• yotei shares a characteristic of a functional control predicate

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Syntactic tests: Idiom chunks• Functional control keeps idiomatic meaning• Anaphoric control (28 b), (29 b) only allows for literal meaning(28) a.
b.

The cat is out of the bag.
# The cat tries to be out of the bag.

(29) a.

Japanese
asi=ga boo=ni nar-u
leg=NOMb.

stick=DAT

become-NPST‘The legs become sticks (i.e., exhausted)’
Japanese
asi=ga boo=ni nar-u
ki=da
leg=NOM

stick=DAT

become-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘The legs intend to become sticks’• ki shares a characteristic of an anaphoric control predicate

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception(Hopefully theory-neutral) Interim summary
Tsunoda (2020)’s Analysis of MC• V and NMC compose a compound predicate• MC is monoclausal

We have seen:• MC can be treated as anaphoric/functional control• but with a noun predicate• It follows that MC is biclausal

Next:• Analyze MC in LFG

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Motivation for an LFG analysis• PRED readily allows for a nominal predicate• Therefore, lexical entries of MC nouns (NMC ) have a similar form toanaphoric/functional control• Anaphoric control MC:• (↑ PRED) = ‘NMC ⟨(SUBJ|OBLθ ), COMP⟩16• (↑ COMP SUBJ PRED) = ‘PRO’• Functional control MC:• (↑ PRED) = ‘NMC ⟨XCOMP⟩SUBJ• (↑ SUBJ) = (↑ XCOMP SUBJ)• COMP/XCOMP can readily handle the cross-linguistic variation of
non-finite forms• Infinitive: Tagalog, Tatar, Russian, Welsh• Adnominal/verbal adjective: Japanese, Burmese, Kurukh, Sidaama, etc.
• Verbal noun: Amdo Tibetan, Bengali• Severing syntax, function, and semantics (c/f/s-structure)• Disentangling MC’s mystery: ‘Syntactically nominal, functionallypredicative, and semantically abstract (modal, etc.)?’16 Whether SUBJ or OBL

θ is selected depends on each lexeme.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exceptionc-structure of functional control with NMC(30) Japanese (< Japonic)
Hanako=ga Oranda=ni
Hanako=NOM

ik-u

yotei=da

Netherlands=DAT go-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to go to the Netherlands.’
(31)

S

NP

NMC P

Hanako=ga

S

NMC

NP

V

Oranda=ni

ik-u

yotei=da

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exceptionc-structure of anaphoric control with NMC(32) Japanese (< Japonic)
Hanako=ga Oranda=ni
Hanako=NOM

ik-u

ki=da

Netherlands=DAT go-NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Hanako intends to go to the Netherlands.’
(33)

S

NP

NMC P

Hanako=ga

S

NMC

NP

V

Oranda=ni

ik-u

ki=da

• c-structural form is the same in raising and equi (language-specific)

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

f-structure of functional control with NMC(34)(35) S

NP
Hanako=ga

SNP
Oranda=ni

PRED



SUBJ


NMC P





NMC

XCOMP
yotei=daV
ik-u‘planned⟨XCOMP⟩SUBJ ’"#
PRED ‘Hanako’







CASE NOM
PRED ‘go⟨ SUBJ ⟩’

SUBJ





"

#




PRED ‘Netherlands’


ADJ

 CASE DATIntroduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

f-structure of anaphoric control with NMC

(37)

(36)
S



NMC P

NP
Hanako=ga

S

NMC

NP

V

Oranda=ni

ik-u

ki=da

PRED



SUBJ









COMP




‘feeling⟨SUBJ , COMP⟩’"#PRED ‘Hanako’







CASE NOM
PRED ‘go⟨ SUBJ ⟩’

h
i


SUBJ

PRED ‘ PRO ’




"
#

 PRED ‘Netherlands’ 


ADJ


 CASE DAT• Raising and equi MCs have a different f-structure (lexical entries)

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Semantics of the Mermaid Constructions• The meaning of MCs can also be constructed in the same manner asfunctional/anaphoric control• Following the semantic representation of raising and equi verbs byDalrymple et al. (2019)17 :• David seemed to yawn: seem(yawn(David))• David tried to yawn: try(David, yawn(David))• We expect the same representation for MCs too:
• Hanako=ga Nagoya=ni ik-u yotei=da: planned(go(Hanako, NL))
• Hanako=ga Nagoya=ni ik-u ki=da: feeling(Hanako, go(Hanako, NL))

• Meaning constructors for NMC :• raising: λP.yotei(P) : (↑ XCOMP)σ ⊸↑σ• equi: λPλx.ki(x, P(x)) :((↑ COMP SUBJ)σ ⊸ (↑ COMP PRED)σ ) ⊸ ((↑ SUBJ)σ ⊸ ↑σ )17 Mary Dalrymple, John J. Lowe, and Louise Mycock. The Oxford Reference Guide to Lexical Functional Grammar. Oxford University Press, 2019.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Predicting scope ambiguity of functional control• Functional control analysis can correctly predict the scope of NMC(38)

Japanesedareka=ga
ik-u
yotei=dasomeone=NOM go-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Someone is going to go. (wide: ∃ > plan, or narrow: plan > ∃)’


(39)
PRED
‘planned⟨XCOMP⟩SUBJ ’
"
# 



PRED ‘someone’
SUBJ



CASE
NOM


s


#
"




PRED ‘go⟨ SUBJ ⟩’XCOMP


(40)

SUBJ

g

p

[yotei][dareka]
[iku]

(41)

Narrow:

(42)

Wide:

λP.planned(P)λS.exist(x, person(x), S(x))λx. go(x)[dareka-iku][dareka-iku-yotei][iku-yotei][dareka-iku-yotei]

18 by conditional proof:::gσ ⊸ pσ∀H.(sσ ⊸ H) ⊸ H
s σ ⊸ gσ::exist(x, person(x), go(x))
planned(exist(x, person(x), go(x)))λx.planned(go(x))
exist(x, person(x), planned(go(x)))

:
:

gσ
pσ
sσ ⊸ pσ 18
pσConclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Predicting the scope of anaphoric control• Anaphoric control analysis correctly restricts the scope(43)

Japanesedareka=ga
ik-u
ki=da
someone=NOM go-NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Someone intends to go. (wide: ∃ > intend; *narrow: intend > ∃)’
PRED‘intend⟨SUBJ , COMP⟩’
"
# 



PRED ‘someone’

SUBJ


CASE NOM


s"

#



PRED ‘go⟨ SUBJ ⟩’ 

COMP
SUBJ
‘ PRO ’gi[ki]
λPλx.intend(x, P):(sσ ⊸ gσ ) ⊸ (sσ ⊸ iσ )[dareka]λS.exist(x, person(x), S(x)):∀H.(sσ ⊸ H) ⊸ H
(45)
[iku]
λx. go(x):s σ ⊸ gσ

(44)

(46)

Wide:

[iku-ki][dareka-iku-ki]• Narrow scope is underivable

19 by conditional proof

λx.intend(go(x))
exist(x, person(x), intend(go(x)))::

sσ ⊸ iσ 19
pσ

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Interim Summary• MCs can be analyzed as raising/equi in LFG.
• Parallelism with conventional verbal/adjectival raising/equi in terms of:• c-structure• f-structure• s-structure• These structures disentangle the core mystery of MC:• ‘Syntactically nominal, functionally predicative, and semanticallyabstract’

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

Exception• There is one exceptional MC found in Tagalog (Katagiri 2020)20 :(47) Tagalog
mukha-ng sa-sabog=na
face-COMP

FUT: AF-erupt=alreadyang=bulkan
NOM =volcano‘The volcano seems to erupt soon.’• This MC takes a finite clause unlike other MCs• Possible solution:• subcategorization mukha⟨COMP⟩?
• backward raising? (Wurmbrand 2015)21• Left for future work
AF — actor focus

20 Masumi Katagiri. “Tagalog”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda.
Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.
21 Susi Wurmbrand. In: Somerville, MA, 2015.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Conclusion

This presentation has shown:• Descriptive (theory-neutral) evidence for biclausal analysis of MC• Syntactic evidence for anaphoric/functional control analysis• LFG’s merits to analyze MCs:
• LFG readily allows for nominal predicates• COMP / XCOMP covering cross-linguistically diverse non-finite forms• Treating each module separately (syntax — (interface) — semantics)• Consistency of the anaphoric/functional control analysis with theconventional LFG framework

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Exception

Thank you!

Contact: c.taguchi@sms.ed.ac.uk

Website: https://chipewyan.github.io

Conclusion