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

For now we are supposing that the negator is always either a left-modifier or clause-final.  One potentially problematic aspect of this analysis is that there are no attested examples of 'ek' appearing to the left of the finite verb (in the forfelt).

>> Is this meant to be a description of the choices? It is
not obviously so, but I don't see anything else in the write up that
describes the analysis you implemented of negation.

Definiteness of NPs is marked by the definite articles 'di' (m/f) and 'dit' (n), which agree in gender.  As the object of a preposition in cases where the referent is unambiguous, the definite article is optional.  For now we have elected to mark determiners as optional on all nouns (except pronouns and certain closed-class nouns like 'fuul' = 'much').

>> Are there indefinite articles?  Aside from the strange case with the
prepositions, are articles required?  "The definite article is optional" is
a weird statement.  Do you mean that NPs without the definite article
can still be interpreted as definites?  What is an example of the
preposition cases?  (Is this something like "in hospital"?)

In the questionnaire, we indicated that object dropping never occurs, but subject dropping occurs with all verbs, with the identity of the subject always marked on the verb (in the form of person/number agreement) regardless of whether the subject is dropped or not.  We created a subject dropping context indicating that the subject NP must be 2SG.

>> I really doubt that object dropping never occurs.  Are there no
verbs like "eat" or "read" that can appear without their objects?

There is apparently additionally a future tense formed with the auxiliary 'skel', which we implemented with an auxiliary verb that selects for a verbal projection with [TENSE nonpast] and [FORM nonfinite].  This tense is not commonly used, however; usage of the present tense combined with a temporal adverb has largely taken over its function.

>> Why are you constraining TENSE to nonpast if the auxiliary indicates
future?

Verbs are normally in the imperfective aspect.  The perfective aspect is formed with an auxiliary 'haa' and the past participle, which is also formed with the affix '-t' on a verb (another lexical rule).  We created an auxiliary verb 'haa' which selects for a verbal projection with [ASPECT perfective] and [FORM nonfinite].

>> So do the finite verb lexical rules give perfective aspect?  (I
   wonder though if your 'haa' + participle is really a perfective,
   which contrasts with an imperfective, or in fact a perfect, which
   isn't really an aspect.)


The examples of demonstrative determiners in our reference tend to feature non-referential subjects, e.g.:

diar laap di hingster en di fölken ön di guart
diar laap di hingst-en en di fölk-en ön di guart
there run the horse-PL and the foal-PL in the yard
there are horses and foals running around in the yard

>> Nothing about this example suggests that those are demonstratives.

It's not completely clear whether the sentential negator 'ek' should be restricted to appear clause-finally.  There are many, many examples where it appears in other places (always right of the finite verb), but it may be modifying another constituent in those cases.  There doesn't seem to be a customization option to allow it to appear in arbitrary positions to the right of the finite verb.

>> I could give you better advice if you included some of those
examples :)
