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

 it appears that both SVO and VSO are possible, with
VSO having the effect of contributing more interrogative force to
the utterance. 

EB> "interrogative force" isn't gradable. Something is a question,
or it isn't.  So what does this mean?

		ze_v1 := trans-verb-lex &
		  [ STEM < "ze" >,
		    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_see_v_rel" ].

		ze_v2 := verb-comp-lex &
		  [ STEM < "ze" >,
		    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_see_v_rel" ].

EB> Technically, these should have different PRED values.

		Source: a:233
		Vetted: t
		Judgment: g
		Phenomena: {embedded interrogative}
		Ikh veys nit vemen du host gezen.
		Ikh veys nit vemen du host ge-ze-n.
		1SG.NOM know;3G NEG WHO;DAT 2SG.NOM have;2SG PP-see-PP. 
		I know not whom you have seen.

EB> Whem I try to parse this with the grammar you submitted,
I get lexical errors for veys and vemen.  And in fact, I'd
be really surprised if you were parsing this one, given
that we aren't handling wh questions.

Source: a:193
Vetted: t
Judgment: g
Phenomena: {adverb}
Dos kind zingt shayn.
Dos kind zing-t shayn.
DEF.ACC.N child sing-1SG nicely.
The child sings nicely.

EB> Semantics isn't quite right.  The ARG1 of _nice_adv_rel should
be the ARG0 of _sing_v_rel.  Also _nice_a_rel, not _nice_adv_rel.

This was successful, however for both these sentneces there is still
one extra spurious parse, as the q-clause rule and relevant adj rule
can apply in either order. We have yet to correct this, but we propose
to correct this by enforcing that the unary-phrase apply as the top
most span -- since the adverb is part of the question -- possibly by
requiring the head daughter of the adj phrasal rules to not have SF be
ques.

EB> SF is a semantic feature, so you can't do that, as it would
be tantamount to changing its value. I think you'd be better off
constraining MC:  the adj-head-int rule should expect MC na 
on the daughter.

## Yes-No Interrogative marker

As already mentioned, Yiddish allows for the use of the interrogative marker
tsi before verb initial inter

EB> And so?

Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: {cop}
Der man iz gut.
Der man iz gut.
DEF.SG.NOM.M man COP good.
The man is good.

EB> MRS isn't quite right: ARG0 of man should be ARG1 of good.

Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: {cop}
Der man iz unter dos hoyz.
Der man iz unter dos hoyz.
DEF.SG.NOM.M man COP under DEF.SG.ACC.N house.
The man is under the house.

We implemented the preposition lex type as follows below, however it is most
definitely still in need of some constraining as we are currently
getting four parses for the above sentence.

EB> And none of them is correct, as the P picks up the
D separate from the N/NP.

preposition-lex := basic-int-mod-adposition-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD adp & [ MOD < [ LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD noun,
                                                        VAL.SPR cons ] ] > ],
                       POSTHEAD - ] ].             

EB> COMPS?

