This is not so much a question of interpretation or translation but of understanding the logic of the syntax module. I've attached a screenshot of the syntax module for the last part of Mt 22.32
**Screen Shot 2015-02-06 at 9.39.55 AM.png** **26.51KB**
0 downloads. The best way I can think of null constituents is to fill them out. In this case the first null constituent labeled 1 is the pred nom/Complement (if written out, it would be θεος) and ο θεος is the Subject. So far so good. After the conjunction, the implied Predicate is εστιν, the implied Complement (labeled 1) is θεος and the implied Subject is ο θεος. My question, if I've understood this correctly, is since both the Subject and Complement in the first clause are both labeled (θεος 1 and 1, respectively--since they are the same word), why aren't the Subject and Complement in the second clause labeled similarly? Why is only the Complement given the tag 1, corresponding to θεος?

Now to Mark 2.9.
**Screen Shot 2015-02-06 at 10.15.10 AM.png** **56.79KB**
0 downloads The null Complement is ευκοπωτερον (as seen from the corresponding 1). Shouldn't the null Predicate be [corrected typo] ειπειν? If so, why isn't it given corresponding numbers? The null subject, obviously, is the personal pronoun in both cases labeled, 2. I appreciate any help in understanding the tagging or correction of my interpretation of the language or the system. Thanks.

**Edited by A. Smith, 13 February 2015 - 12:12 AM.**