---------------------------------------------------------
Notes

Source: a:277
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: q
wet dü jir bliiv
wel-st dü jir bliiv
want-2SG you here stay
do you want to stay here?

Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: wo
dü wet jir bliiv
dü wel-st jir bliiv
you want-2SG here stay
you want to stay here

EB> These ones lack lexical coverage and don't parse... but one
of your later examples does.

It seems that some rule is able to apply infinitely in generation but not in parsing. I'm not sure why this would be or how to debug it. I'll post to GoPost with more information (not sure what would be helpful though) to try to resolve this next week.

EB> If it's a lexical rule that adds an affix, the spelling limits
it in parsing, even if nothing else does.  The other possibility
is that you have a semantically empty lexical entry with e.g.,
an underspecified COMPS list.  That could cause the generator to spin
(on head-opt-comp, for example) but not the parser, if the item
isn't in the input string but is nonetheless put in by its trigger
rule.  (Looking at the gen-chart for one example suggests that "dat"
is probably at least part of the problem.  For one thing, it seems
happy to pick up a CP complement...) But, post to GoPost?

# Adapted from a:295
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: emb-d
ik gesi dat et sa es
ik gesi dat et sa sen-t
I guess that it so be-3SG
I guess that is so


EB> This one also has lexical errors:

LKB(33): 
LKB(33): (lkb::do-parse-tty "ik gesi dat et sa sen-t")
  (1) [0:1] |ik|
  (2) [1:2] |gesi|
  (3) [2:3] |dat|
  (4) [3:4] |et|
  (5) [4:5] |sa|
  (6) [5:6] |sen-t|

No analysis found corresponding to token 3-4 ET
No analysis found corresponding to token 4-5 SA
No analysis found corresponding to token 5-6 SEN-T

EB> I finally found one in your test suite that parses (i-id 129),
but I shouldn't have to go looking there.  Please please illustrate
your analyses with examples that actually parse with the grammar
you turn in (or are the relevant non-parsing examples in the case
of analyses that aren't quite working).

EB> 6 analyses for #129.  Looks like you have some lexical ambiguity
for jam that you don't need --- why not just underspecify it's NUM
between du and pl (i.e., non-sg)?  At least one of the 6 has a reasonable
MRS, though.

After these additions, it was possible to parse sentences with V2 word order in the embedded clause, but verb-final order wasn't working. Verb-initial order *was* (and is still) working, even though it shouldn't.

EB> Example, so I can try to help debug?

EB> No working IGT for NP or PP predicates included.  I found
an NP example in your testsuite, but not a PP example, so I couldn't
check the MRS for the PP.

EB> The write up says "I" in a few places --- was this lab done
by just one of you? ;-)
