My article [Non-autonomous accusative case in Estonian][1] references two corpus studies that I conducted to investigate whether... 1. the relative pronoun alternation between `mis~mille` was restricted to object position, 2. or if it was available in all genitive positions (objects, adposition complements, possessor/genitive position) In the article, I give information about how I queried the corpora, but here I actually upload the (partially annotated) data that I pulled for these studies. Unfortunately, it isn't completely annotated. Since I can read some Estonian, I didn't need to fill out every column. `estacc-relpn-corpussearch-adposition.csv` * Pulled from [EtTenTen corpus][2] * Query: `, +mis@word +(k)` * Examples: 200/4969 total hits * Columns: * `token`: example + source * `AdP`: the adposition next to `mis` * `meaning`: adposition translation * `here`: roughly, the adposition's syntactic function in the token * `ekss`: roughly, what the adposition lemma's range of syntactic functions is * `mis`: roughly, what `mis`'s role is in the relative clause `estacc-relpn-corpussearch-possessor.csv` * Pulled from [EtTenTen corpus][2] * Query: `, +mis@word &nn>@syn +*mine(s)` * Examples: 82/82 total hits * Columns: * `id_no`: an id number to be able to return to original sort order * `example`: source + example text * `coded_subj`: was the relative pronoun tagged as subject in the corpus (some were tagged multiple roles) * `syn`: roughly, what I think the relative pronoun's syntactic role actually is * `nominalization_translation`: What the `-mine` nominalization's translation is [1]: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004500 [2]: https://www.keeleveeb.ee/dict/corpus/ettenten/