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

For interrogative clauses, we needed to create a new type that inherited from the qpart-lex-item type created above for the matrix questions. This type, embed-qpart-lex-item constrains MC - on CAT also to prevent this type of complementizer from showing up in matrix clauses. Unfortunately we couldn't find any examples of héči used in a sentence that did not use the ditransitive verb "to ask." Since we do not have a ditransitive verb model yet, we have no examples of héči that will parse.

EB> You can create the verb type that you need by inheriting from
this type instead of clausal-second-arg-trans-lex-item:

clausal-third-arg-ditrans-lex-item := basic-three-arg &
   [ ARG-ST < [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX ref-ind & #ind1 ],
	      [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX ref-ind & #ind2 ],
	      [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.LTOP #larg ] >,
     SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CONT.HCONS <! qeq & [ HARG #harg,
					  LARG #larg ] !>,
	      LKEYS.KEYREL [ ARG1 #ind1,
			     ARG2 #ind2,
			     ARG3 #harg ] ] ].

You'll need to make a type parallel to your clausal-verb-lex
type that inherits from that one and constrains the valence
elements appropriately.

# 141/G inanimate postposition
Source: b:146
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: wo,agr
wakšíča kiŋ wáglotapi akáŋl hé
wakšíča kiŋ wáglotapi akáŋl hÁŋ
wakšíča kiŋ wáglotapi akáŋl hÁŋ
bowl    DEF table     on    be_located.INAN
'the bowl is on the table'

EB> The MRS isn't quite right for this one.  In particular:
1) The ARG1 of _on-top_p_rel doesn't point to anything
2) The LBL of _on-top_p_rel is the LARG of a phantom qeq

EB> I suspect that part of the problem is that the postposition isn't
linking its XARG to anything.  The second problem is because you chose
trans-first-arg-raising-lex-item-1 (which is for semantically
contentful raising verbs) rather than
trans-first-arg-raising-lex-item-2.

# 144/G animate postposition
Source: b:700
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: wo,agr
pahá akáŋl yaŋké
pahá akáŋl yaŋkÁ-3SgAgt
pahá akáŋl yaŋkÁ-3SgAgt
hill on    be_located.ANIM-3SG.AGT
'he is (sits) on  a hill'

EB> Doesn't parse.

# 147/G verbialized noun w/NP subj
# syntactically correct, though nonsense
Source: b:171
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: cop
bébela kiŋ lé hokšíla
bébela kiŋ lé hokšíla
bébela kiŋ lé hokšíla
baby DEF that be_boy
'that baby is a boy'

EB> There's an extra quantifier in this example.  If you were
following the rule I posted for Halkomelem, that one expects an N'
daughter and provides the quantifier for the NP predicate.  If your
predicate is actually an NP already, then you don't want that
quantifier.

EB> Also, why is this nonsense?

# 150/G np-copula verb
Source: author
Vetted: n
Judgment: g
Phenomena: cop
šúŋka kiŋ wičháša héčha
šúŋka kiŋ wičháša héčha
šúŋka kiŋ wičháša héčha
dog DEF man be_a
'The dog is a man.'

EB> This one, meanwhile, is short a quantifier.  Can you make
the copula require an NP complement (i.e., SPR < >)?  That should
force the N through the  bare NP rule (assuming you have that?).

EB> Also: there is spurious ambiguity in this example, with V optionally
going through some lexical rule.

To model the noun phrase copula verb, we created a type
tr-np-copula-verb-lex that inherits from the same types as the
transitive-verb-lex. The purpose of this type is to precent specifiers
form being attached to the noun phrase predicates. We could not
inherit directly from that type, as constraining the complement with
SPR cons clashed with its parent's constraint.

EB> So overt determiners are ungrammatical there?  In that case,
if you really want to select an N' complement, you have to have
the verb supplying the quantifier.  Alternatively, you could try
constraining the COG-ST of the N' predicate so that no (demonstrative)
determiners could possibly have attached, letting only the bare-np
rule work.

We did not make any changes this week for adjectives, as they do not exist as non-verbal predicates.

EB> But the simple use of the stative verbs as predicate would be the analogous
thing.  Do those work?  Examples?

Our grammar yields 86.4% coverage over the test suite, with 5.9% overgeneration. Using the same testsuite, our lab 5 grammar produced 80.7% coverage and 1.8% overgeneration. We spot checked most of the MRS, and it appeared to 

EB> appeared to ... ?
