Notes:

I found no tsdb/ directory in what you turned in.  As I said
in class, I won't be explicitly grading on the use of [incr tsdb()]
after this, but I think it's very useful and worth learning how
to do!

The write up I found a little terse.  You should describe in
a bit more detail what exactly you did in the grammar. I  require
this because, especially as the grammars get bigger, it becomes
infeasible for me to read through them looking for the changes
you made without some sort of a guide.  It's also good practice
to document what you do thoroughly!

>The case system in Uzbek is fairly straightforward.  Subjects of both
>transitive and nontransitive verbs take nominative case.  For now I model the
>simplest verb paradigm, where objects take acc. or nom. case.  There are 
>other paradigms where verb objects can take dative or ablative case 
>(and maybe others).  Bare accusative objects are understood as definite,
>bare nominative objects are understood as a "concept" undergoing verb 
>incorporation.  Nominative objects that are specified by an overt 
>indefinite specifier are (no surprise here) understood as indefinite. 

This seems like an odd use of the word paradigm to me.  Is it
verbs in particular conjugations that take dative or ablative
arguments, or is it just particular verbs that are lexically
specified to be that way?  (And, btw, what happens with `nominative'
or caseless NPs as objects for those verbs?)

Also, are the nominative objects really nominative, or just
not case-marked?

Something I'm confused about from your write up:  are nominative
NPs in object position ever interpreted as definite?  (Your analysis
predicts that they are, but if so, then this is presumably a different
use from the one that gives rise to the incorporated concept
noun interpretation.)
