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

  However, this would not yet solve our problem in which "li"attaches
  sometimes to the second word in a larger constituent and thus takes
  the third position in the sentences.  If there was a way to group
  neg adverbs and prepositions and create a subtype for them that
  would disallow licensing appearance of the "li" after them, that
  would be very useful for Russian.

If you provide examples here, it is easier for me to take a look and
see what is going wrong...

  Coverage: in LKB sentence #231 is now parsed as grammatical, but in
  itsdb it is a "wellformed" non parsed sentence.

This is surprising. Are you sure you are looking at a test suite profile
parsed by the same grammar?  Also, item #231 doesn't seem to have
to do with questions at all...

Now we get only one parse for sentence:  

 #163   (subj   li   verb   obj) 
Source: a, e 
Vetted: t 
Judgment: g 
Phenomena: Matrix yes-no questions 
Ivan li          kupil        sobaku? 
Ivan li          kupi-l       sobak-u 
Ivan INTERROGATIVE   buy-3SG.PST  dog-ACC.SG 
Did Ivan buy a dog?

The version of the grammar you turned in gets two parses
here.  It looks like you didn't do this bit, from GoPost:

3) Finally, it turns out that basic-head-mod-phrase-simple isn't flat-out identifying the SYNSEM of the head daughter with the MOD.FIRST of the modifier daughter (because of the analysis of LDDs...), so we need to explicitly identify the L-PERIPH values:

basic-head-mod-phrase-simple :+
  [ HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM.L-PERIPH #periph,
    NON-HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD.MOD < [ L-PERIPH #periph ] > ].


basic-head-opt-subj-phrase :+ same-periph-unary-phrase & 
 [ SYNSEM.L-PERIPH #periph,
   ARGS < [ SYNSEM.L-PERIPH #periph ] > ].

Did you mean to say same-ynq-unary-phrase instead of same-periph-unary-phrase
here?  

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

However, after writing this:

        binary-headed-phrase :+ mc-na-headed-phrase.

we don't get any parses any longer and I am not sure what it's the problem.  When I parse "Ivan spit" ("Ivan 
sleeps"), I don't get a parse, but there is no unification error at the highest level "S" licensed by Head-Subj
Rule.  

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

This constraint makes all of your phrase structure rules end up as [MC na],
requiring either int-cl or decl-cl at the root of the tree to create something
that is [MC bool].  This is how the YNQ value is detected and turned into
an SF value.  However:

--- You didn't instantiate int-cl and decl-cl in rules.tdl.
--- When I did that, things still didn't work, because your root was
looking for a non-empty YNQ value.
--- When I fixed that, things started parsing again, but with
extra ambiguity.  I'm guessing that the YNQ values aren't fully constrained.


   6.  The interrogative embedded clauses still remain a problem
   because we haven't solved the "li"-questions in matrix yet.
   Sentences 234 and 235 do not yet parse correctly.  Also, the
   sentence #234 does not parse now because embedded-clausal-verb-lex
   requires HEAD comp and we are not treating interrogative particle
   "li" as a comp anymore (it is now a question-clitic-lex, which we
   have done in order to have coverage over the matrix
   "li"-interrogative clauses).  We have to figure out then how to
   place the question-clitic-lex instead of the complementizer-lex
   into interrogative embedded clauses.

You can make the question-embedding verbs select for
[HEAD verb] complements... 

This type is very broken, because of bad tdl style:

embed-clausal-verb-lex := main-verb-lex & clausal-second-arg-trans-lex-item &
    [ ARG-ST < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD noun ],
             #comps &
             [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SPR < >,
                                   COMPS < > ],
                   HEAD comp ] ] >,
      SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.COMPS < #comps >,
                     CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF prop-or-ques ] & 
		     [ CAT.MC - ] ].

What you've said is:

embed-clausal-verb-lex := main-verb-lex & clausal-second-arg-trans-lex-item &
    [ ARG-ST < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD noun ],
             #comps &
             [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SPR < >,
                                   COMPS < > ],
                   HEAD comp ] ] >,
      SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT [ VAL.COMPS < #comps >,
                                           MC - ],
                                 CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF prop-or-ques ]].

That is, you're constraining the verb's own MC and SF value, rather
than its complement's.  What you mea to say is:

embed-clausal-verb-lex := main-verb-lex & clausal-second-arg-trans-lex-item &
    [ ARG-ST < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD noun ],
             #comps &
             [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SPR < >,
                                   COMPS < > ],
                   HEAD comp ] ] >,
      SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT [ VAL.COMPS < #comps & 
                                                                [ LOCAL [ CAT.MC -,
								                CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF prop-or-ques ]] > ]]].

But rather than saying things about the avm tagged #comps in two
places, it would be even clearer to say this:

embed-clausal-verb-lex := main-verb-lex & clausal-second-arg-trans-lex-item &
    [ ARG-ST < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD noun ],
             #comps &
             [ LOCAL [ CAT [ MC -, 
                                      VAL [ SPR < >,
                                               COMPS < > ],
                                      HEAD comp ],
                            CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF prop-or ques ]] >,
      SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < #comps > ].

  Actually that seemed to cover what we need because we already get
  the correct MRSs for the verb "duma" ("think").  For example, in the
  attached image for sentence 236 the ARG2 position of _think_v_rel
  (h8) is linked to the LBL of _sleep_v_rel (h14) and the SF value of
  e15 is PROP.

The purpose of the feature MC isn't to get the MRS right but to rule
out e.g., embedded declaratives with no complementizer.  However, you
can already do that by requiring [HEAD comp], so I don't think the feature
is helping here, beyond the way we use it to require int-cl or decl-cl to fire...

Kniga			boljshaja. 
Knig-a			boljsh-aja		 
Book-FEM.SG.NOM  	large-FEM.SG.NOM 	 
The book is large.

This should probably be constrained to be [TENSE present], and it isn't...

Kniga			byla		boljshaja. 
Knig-a			byl-a		boljsh-aja		 
Book-FEM.SG.NOM  	be-3SG.FEM.PST	large-FEM.SG.NOM 	 
The book was large.

MRS is a little broken for this one:  The INDEX of the whole thing
(e2) with the [TENSE past] information should be the ARG0 of big.

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.

The ADJ boljshimi is not combining with the noun knigi via the adj-head
rule.  Might this be because your attributive-to-predicative rule is somehow
obligatory?

