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

Our grammar have not worked with the embedded clause yet; however, we found some examples of the clitic noun =su(u) or =ru working as a complementizer. Here is the example:

    cf-tar=[ru]=u  cnu=du ss-tar
    arrive-PAST=COMP=TOP yesterday+FOC know-PAST
    'Yesterday did (I) realize [the fact that] (she) arrived'

Is this the kind of example should we look for? Since double clitics (mentioned in later) is not working in our grammar yet, and =ru is also the question marker, so it will increase ambiguity if we add this to our grammar.

EB> Yes, this is the kind of example I'm looking for.

     kama=a [mii+imi]=du ur-0=ri
     that.place=TOP RDP+small=FOC PROG-NPST=eh
     "That place is small, eh?" (Lit. That place is small-ing.)

     kantja=a [jarabii+jarabi]=du ur-0=dara
     3SG=TOP RDP+child=FOC PROG-NPST=EMPH
     "They are childish, you see?" (Lit. They are childish-ing, you see.)

EB> These two are examples of adjectives use as predicates (i.e., non-verbal
predicates, one of the topics of Lab 6).

In Lab5, we modeled constitution with NP and got it work, but not with VP. It is because the auxilary (copula) verb is not functioning properly yet. 

EB> That's fine -- it's for Lab 6 anyway :)

Unfortunately, adjectives constituting with VP is not working in our grammar because of copula verb. But I am assuming it can be modeled with similar approach as adjective taking genitive marker. Instead of specifying "nouny" head, =du can be implemented as adj-clitic looking for "verby" head.

EB> Actually, it works rather differently.  See Lab 6 instructions, and let me know
if you have questions.

     #(41)
     #Example 61 The adj must go before the noun in the NP and takes GEN case
     Source: author
     Vetted: f     
     Judgment: g
     Phenomena: adj
     ujakiiujaki=nu pztu=nu niv0
     ujakiiujaki=nu pztu=nu niv-0
     rich=GEN man=NOM sleep-NPST
     A rich man sleeps

EB> The parse looks reasonable, but the semantics isn't quite right.  _rich_adj_rel
(should be _rich_a_rel) should have an ARG1 which is the same as the ARG0 of
_man_n_rel.

EB> To fix this, you should modify adjective-lex as follows:

adjective-lex := basic-adjective-lex & norm-ltop-lex-item & 
   [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CONT.HOOK.XARG #xarg,
                      CAT [ HEAD.MOD < >,
                            VAL [ SPR < >,
                                  SUBJ < >,
                                  COMPS < >,
                                  SPEC < > ]],
              LKEYS.KEYREL.ARG1 #xarg ]]].

It is not parsing in our result because we specified as japa-f as two morphemes (which we are aiming to model) but our current grammar is parsing following sentence as we expected.

    ba=ga vva=u japaf kurusadi
    ba=ga vva=u japaf kurusa-di 
    1SG=NOM 2SG=ACC softADV kill-INTENT
    I kill you softly

EB> When I tried parsing this, it didn't parse (with the version
of the grammar you turned in).  There is no constituent connecting
the ADV to the V.  Trying intersective unificatio, it seems like the
problem is that that verb form doesn't have a tense morpheme, which
should be obligatory for it.

EB> This version parses: ba=ga vva=u japaf kurusa0  PLEASE be sure
that the IGT you say parses actually does.

EB> The semantics looks good, except that _japaf_softly_adv_rel should
be _softly_r_rel.



EB> No IGT for me to test with the demonstratives!

    #Example 20 ungrammatical arugument optionality on object
    Source: author
    Vetted: f
    Judgment: g                                                                     Phenomena: pro-d
    ba=ga tur0
    ba=ga tur-0
    1SG=NOM take-NPST
    I take (something).

EB> The comment suggests that this should be ungrmamatical, but now you've reclassified it as grammatical, right?

By looking at the result, it seems to be that our grammar is doing the right thing. Sample sentences in testsuite is as follows:

EB> None followed.  (But I used the ones above.)

We finally incorporated pronoun unification features into our grammar and working as we expected. (i.e. PRONOUN feature is doing the right work.) This fix leads us to reduce our error drastically. 

EB> Yay :)

=====================
8. Test Courpus
=====================


=====================

EB> ??? ... but I see the files, so okay.

- Coordination (Asociative) Errors

    #Example 57 both NPs are marked with ASC label
    Source: author
    Vetted: f
    Judgment: g
    Phenomena: crd
    ujakiiujaki=nu pztu=tu kibannkiban=nu pztu=tu niv0
    ujakiiujaki=nu pztu=tu kibannkiban=nu pztu=tu niv0-0
    rich=GEN man=ASC poor=GEN man=ASC sleep-NPST
    The rich man and the poor man sleep.

EB> What is the error here?

We are still confused how to implement dual clitics such as "ai=sii=du".

    #Example 59
    Source: author
    Vetted: f
    Judgment: g
    Phenomena: crd
    kuzmi=u burii ai=sii=du fau-tar
    kuzmi=u bur-i-i, ai=sii=du fau-tar
    small.claw=ACC break-THM-MED, that.way=INS=FOC eat-PST
    (I) broke the small claws and ate it in that way.

EB> I could help better if I knew what "THM" and "MED" were.

Note: Example 67 is giving us false-positive with same reason.
In order to have proper adverbial form, 'japa' has to be followed by -f.
    
    #Example 67 The suffix is required for adverbialization
    Source: author
    Vetted: f
    Judgment: u
    Phenomena: adv
    ba=ga vva=u japa kurusadi
    ba=ga vva=u japa kurusa-di 
    1SG=NOM 2SG=ACC soft kill-INTENT
    I kill you softly

EB> Probably because the -f suffix isn't required (isn't a required
position class).  But, in this case, I'd be tempted just to enter
the words as adverbs in the lexicon with spellings like "japa-f".

