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

Please put some white space in your write up between sections.
In the file you turned in, it all runs together, making it harder to read.

This example doesn't parse:

Jeti                devochki           chitajut         boljshimi               knigi.   
Jet-i               devochk-i          chita-ju-t       boljsh-imi               knig-i 
These-FEM.3PL.NOM   girl-FEM.3PL.NOM   read-3PL-PRS     big-FEM.3PL.INST        book-FEM.3PL.ACC
These girls are reading large books.  

PLEASE illustrate your analyses with IGT examples that
actually currently parse in your grammar, so I can test
things out, without having to hunt around for an
example that does parse.

This example is missing relations in its semantics:

Jeti                devochki           chitajut         boljshimi               knigi.   
Jet-i               devochk-i          chita-ju-t       boljsh-imi               knig-i 
These-FEM.3PL.NOM   girl-FEM.3PL.NOM   read-3PL-PRS     big-FEM.3PL.INST        book-FEM.3PL.ACC
These girls are reading large books.  

This happens when there's an unbounded RELS list somewhere,
and in this case it looks like the problem is with the determiner.
The demonstrative determiner lexical type has to constrain the RELS
list to have exactly two things on it, rather than at least two things.

Ivan      bystro   letit        samoljotom.  
Ivan      samoljotom        letit        bystro.  
Ivan      bystro       samoljotom        letit.
Ivan is flying quickly by the plane.

Samoljot bystro letit.
Samoljot bystro let-it
Plane.NOM quickly fly-3SG.PRS
The plane is flying quickly.

You have three parses of this one.  Some of that ambiguity might be
unavoidable, but you can reduce it some:

1. Constrain the head-opt-comp rule to require SUBJ cons on the head
daughter, so dropped complements are dischared below the head-subj
rule.

2. I'm not convinced that letit is really transitive.  The
instrumental "by the plane" seems like its functioning as an
adverbial modifier, not as a complement.  Making letit intransitive
would simplify this example, though of course you'll have the same
issue with other transitives with optional arguments.

You might want to make an adjective-lex-rule supertype that inherits
from the set of supertypes you're using and constrains the DTR type.
That will simplify the statement of the more specific lexical rules for
adj agreement.

5. Grammar coverage
Analyze | Coverage: 62.6%
Analyze | Overgeneration: 5.3%

How does this compare to the baseline?

For object dropping we created a transitive verb subtype constraining the first item on its COMPS list to OPT-CS in-foc:
transitive-verb-lex-opt-dni := transitive-verb-lex &
	[ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS.FIRST.OPT-CS in-foc ].
Next, we changed a relevant verb subtype created by the customization to inherit from this new subtype:

But what about transitive verbs like "eat"?  Do they also require
OPT-CS in foc on their complement?


