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

EB> I'm puzzled that you are doing manual merges of grammar
files.  Shouldn't git be handling that for you?
 
The full set of examples have been omitted as they are present in our lab four write up. Yiddish only has prehead modifiers, so we created a rule called `adj-head-int` as described in the lab directions. Our grammar already contained `+nvcdmo` which was generated automatically by the matrix:

EB> But how did you implement the adjectives themselves?

	adverb-lex := basic-adverb-lex & intersective-mod-lex &
		[SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD.MOD <[ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD verb]>,
				VAL [ 	SPR < >,
						SUBJ < >,
						COMPS < >,
						SPEC < >
				
		]]]]].

EB> This tdl doesn't constrain the VAL of the MOD value --- so
that your adverbs can attach to V, VP or S.  Adding some constraints
to VAL would probably help...  Seeing as you have S attachment when
the adv is sentence-initial, you might want to just insist on S attachment
everywhere. (Though I bet that will run afoul of VP coordination examples...)

Below is some general information on writing lexical rules. Please also refer to the lexical rules emitted by the customization system. Adjective agreement lexical rules should be of the "add only" type. Note that if you have an apparently uninflected form (i.e., a zero in the paradigm), you'll need to make sure it goes through a constant lexical rule (no spelling change) which fills in the relevant feature values.

EB> Why is this in your write-up?

sg-masc-nom-adjective-lex := adjective-lex & infl-lex-rule & add-only-no-ccont-rule &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD.MOD.FIRST.LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD.CASE nom,
                                            CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ GEND masc,
                                                                  NUM sg ] ] ].

EB> Something's weird here --- in fact I'm surprised this works --- you
shouldn't have lexical rules inheriting from lexical types (adjective-lex).


Source: a:248
Vetted: t
Judgment: g
Phenomena: {demonstratives}
Di mame git yenem kind yents bukh.
Di mame git yenem kind yents bukh.
DEF.NOM.F mother give;1SG DEM.DAT.N child DEM-ACC.N book.
The mother gives that child that book.

EB> This one doesn't parse.

Checking this out with relevant parsing sentences shows that the
COG-ST of an unexpressed referent is indeed coming up with the value
type-id.

EB> No example for me to check out...

We took the 10 sentences for our corpus from the Corpus of Modern
Yiddish (http://www.corpustechnologies.com:8080/YNC/search/). The
sentences we chose came from a variety of sources, including religious
texts, fiction, and newswire. We had to first overcome some
limitations in the search interface of the corpus which did not allow
us to sort by item length but through a workaround we were able to
extract short sentences. Unfortunately we have not yet had time to put
items from this corpus into the lexicon. Accordingly, we do not yet
parse any of these sentences.

EB> The idea behind a "test corpus", even a small one, is to collect
running text, if possible.  But it's fine to have a frankenstory, since
you've already done it.

		# adverb in wrong location
		Source: author based on a:223-224
		Vetted: t
		Judgment: u
		Phenomena: {adverb, word order}
		Der man shayn leyent dos bukh.
		Der man shayn leyen-t dos bukh.
		DEF.NOM.M man nicely read-1SG DEF.ACC.N book.
		The man reads the book nicely.

EB> I think there are two ways to go on ruling this one out.
One is to constrain the MOD value of the adverb further, as noted
above.   But you also probably want to make sure that the adj-head-int
rule is sensitive to the same constraints that are enforicing second
position as the other rules are. My guess is that having it inherit
from head-final-head-nexus might just do the trick.  (Conversely,
an head-adj-int rule should inherit from head-initial-head-nexus.)
Then I also worry briefly if this will cause problems in NP modification,
but maybe not.
