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

	cftar=ru=u sstar
	cf-tar=ru=u ss-tar
	arrive-PAST=COMP=ACC know-PAST
	I realized [the fact that] (she) arrived.

EB> This example doesn't parse with the grammar you
submitted.  It looks like sstar isn't able to combine
with the CP (PP) to its left, via head-comp.  The problem,
as I pointed out on GoPost (but probably after you turned
in the lab, right?) is that you've inherited from a lexical
type that expects a complement that is (semantically) nouny.
Did you get it working since?

EB> More generally, when an example *isn't* parsing, your
write up should indicate that.

Here are the definition of complementizer(s). We only have =ru as our example in the testsuit.

EB> Why don't you have examples of embedded questions?

		kari=a sinsii
		kari=a sinsii
		3SG=TOP teacher
		He (is) a teacher

EB> 176 trees for this one!  It looks like your decl-cl and int-cl
rules are waaay over applying. The daughter on those should be
[HEAD verb, SUBJ < >, COMPS < > ].  You've also got parses where
'a' by itself is picked up as a SUBJ for the NP predicate, suggesting
its SUBJ value is underconstrained (as is its SPR value).  I can't
find a parse that looks reasonable among the 176, though.  

EB> Also: your pronouns should all have _pronoun_n_rel as their
PRED value, not things like he_she_rel.

EB> Is it a bit surprising that the "accuative topic marker"
is being used here?  

Ryukyuan have two forms of copula verb (ar & jar). We have implemented as transitive verb which takes +njrp  (disjunctive type for nouns, adjectives, adverbs and adpositions). A little more restriction is necessary not to parse ungrammatical sentences.

EB> As indicated in the instructions, you need DIFFERENT copulas
for NP predicates and AP/PP predicates, because the semantics is
different.  For the NP predicates, a transitive verb should work,
which contributes _be_v_id_rel.  For AP/PP predicates, you need
something closer to a (semantically empty) auxiliary.

Since the only difference between copula verbs and existential verbs are the animacy, theoretically speaking existential verbs (such as "u", "ur", "ar", and "jar") should work as same way for the non-verbal predicate. However, our grammar is not fully working with existential verbs yet.

EB> No, they are different semantically too!

Sentences getting correct analysis:

	# nominal predicate (NP)   
	#Example 72
	Source: author
	Vetted: f
	Judgment: g
	Phenomena: cop
	kari=a sinsii jar0
	kari=a sinsii jar-0
	3SG=TOP teacher COP-NPST
	He is a teacher

EB> This one doesn't parse with the grammar you turned in.

	# nominal predicate (NP)
	#Example 74
	Source: author
	Vetted: f
	Judgment: g
	Phenomena: cop
	kari=a sinsii a-tar
	kari=a sinsii a-tar
	3SG=TOP teacher COP-PAST
	He was a teacher

EB> 176 parses, but none seem correct (see above)

	# nominal predicate (NP)
	#Example 75
	Source: author
	Vetted: f
	Judgment: g
	Phenomena: cop
	kari=a sinsii=du atar
	kari=a sinsii=du a-tar
	3SG=TOP teacher=FOC COP-PAST
	He was a teacher

EB> Doesn't parse (maximum number of edges exceeded).

	# nominal predicate (NP)
	#Example 76
	Source: author
	Vetted: f
	Judgment: u
	Phenomena: cop
	kari=a sinsii
	kari=a sinsii
	3SG=TOP teacher 
	He (was) a teacher

EB> Isn't this the same as a grammatical sentence above?
(NB: Changing the gloss doesn't make a string ungrammatical.)

	#(35) Adj/Adv
	#Example 77
	Source: author
	Vetted: 	f
	Judgment: g
	Phenomena: cop
	kari=a takaf=du ar0
	kari=a taka-f=du ar-0
	3SG=TOP tall-ADV=FOC COP-NPST
	He is tall

EB> Not parsing.

	#Example 80 Animacy is important in the copula 
	Source: author
	Vetted: f
	Judgment: u
	Phenomena: cop
	pztu=nu cc=n jar0
	pztu=nu cc=n jar-0
	man=NOM moon=DAT COP-NPST
	The man is on the moon 

EB> Parses! (and only twice ;)  That's not the MRS I'd expect,
though.  First of all _jar_v_2_rel isn't an English lemma.  Do
you want this to mean "The man exists on the moon" or "The man
is on the moon"?  If the latter, the copula should be semantically
empty.  If the former, we things are a bit more complex, but
we could make the semantics basically say "The man exists and
the existing is on the moon."

At this point, we are overgenerating since the int-cl and decl-cl is not working correctly so there 
are interrogatives being parsed when the 'ru' particle is not present.  This will need to be addressed
next week since we ran out of time.

EB> Let's work on this one interactively in class...

 It is grammatical and it wasn't parsing before so it's an overstep in
the right direction. Another sentence that's ungrammatical and wasn't
parsing before is now parsing due to this interaction as well:

EB> But if none of the parses are correct, then it's not really
a step in the right direction.



