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

We also fixed up the incorrect semantics for adjectives, adverbs and
predicative adjectives. In the case of adjectives and adverbs, this
was due to the lex-rule incorrectly inheriting from
intersective-mod-lex rather than the lex-type,

EB> The term "lex-type" refers to the types used in the definition
of lexical entries, not lexical rules.  But your grammar looks right,
and I think I know what you mean.

Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: {adverb, word order}
Gut zingt dos kind.
Gut zing-t dos kind.
well sing-1SG DEF.NOM.N child.
The child sings well.

EB> Still not quite right.  The ARG1 of _good_a_rel is not
identified with the ARG0 of _sing_v_rel here.  It looks like
the problem is with Q-clause (which maybe you don't want firing
here anyway?) not idenfiying the C-CONT.HOOK with the daughter's
HOOK.

Another thing that emerged was that we were identifying sentences with
an adverb preceding verb initial word order as an adverb modifying an
interrogative clause. This however could also be a topicalized adverb
from a VOS clause however, and we were in fact getting two parses
corresponding to these cases. Due to this inherent ambiguity, we
suspect that this word order would only have an interrogative
interpretation with accompanying rising intonation. This meant that we
changed the test suite example to reflect the new analysis, and also
that we needed to rule out the parse corresponding to the
interrogative reading. We did this by enforcing that the q-clause-rule
can only apply to modified phrases that attached to the right:

EB> The only parse I see for the exmaple above is the q-clause
reading.  Also, be careful what you assume about ambiguity!  Languages
don't really try to avoid it.  And at any rate, since we're not
representing intonation, even if intonation marking is required, 
we'd want to treat the string as ambiguous.

Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenomena: {modal}
Ikh ken esn gloz.
Ikh ken es-n gloz.
1SG.NOM can;1SG eat-INF glass. 
I can eat glass.

EB> How do you still have "_ikh_pro_rel" as the PRED value for
ikh? That violates several design principles of MRS we have talke
about:

1) Feature-type semantic information (here, person & number) belongs
in the features, not the PRED name.
2) No syntactic information in the PRED values (pro where the pos tag
goes, suggests a syntactic contrast between pronouns and nouns)
3) For MMT purposes, no language-specific PRED values.

EB> This (and all your pronouns) should be _pronoun_n_rel.

"Es-n gloz ken ikh", and also the finite verb not being in the second
position: "Ken es-n gloz ikh". We'll will return to address this
overgeneration at a later point.
 
EB> The strategy here is to work in the parsing direction, once
generation shows you the extra strings.  Trying that with "Ken es-n
gloz ikh", I see that you're getting a q-clause generated, because the
input was presumably underspecified for SF.  Do you allow pure
intonation questions in ydd?  If so, this is expected.  (Though you
can block it with the vpm strategy, by insisn't that prop-or-ques
coming in should be prop.)

Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenomena: {word order}
Es tut mir vey.
Es tut mir vey.
3SG.NOM.N do;3SG me woe.
It hurts me.

EB> Two parses for this one.  Case ambiguity on the pronouns,
or case (mis-)underspecification on the verb?

One catch however, was that we get two parses for this sentence. One
corresponds to the correct SVOO word order, and the other corresponds
to a topicalization of one of the objects: OVOS. This ambiguity arises
because the pronoun form is inherently ambiguous between nominative
and accusative, and there is no determiner on the direct object 'vey'
to indicate accusative case. This raises the question of when SVOO
clauses are topicalized, OVOS is a permitted word order. The reference
grammar seems to imply that it should be OVSO, however is not
clear. Perhaps the best course of action will be to exclude OVOS until
positive evidence is found.

EB> I see :)  I'd say the best course of action is the lazy one
here.  Don't do the work of getting rid of parses that might be
legit if you don't know they aren't.

The problem we are having is that in the "It doesn't hurt me" sentence, we
see pronoun and nit inversion. We have currently not implemented this, however
this is the only remaining hurdle.

EB> I think there are two ways to go:

1) Treat 'nit' as a selected complement, but create two
different neg-add lexical rules.  One puts nit at the head
of the COMPS list, and insists that the rest of the list is
a (possibly empty) list that starts with a non-pronoun (if anything).
The other puts nit as the second thing on the COMPS list,
after a pronoun.

2) Keep treating 'nit' as an adverb, attaching to a 
[LIGHT +, HEAD verb] constituent, but make sure that
V + pronoun is [ LIGHT +, HEAD verb ].  That will allow
the order you say is correct, but won't rule out the other order.

EB> ... so I think (1) might be the way to go.  You can get
a version of the neg-add rule out of the customization system
and work from there.

		# Forverts 	2009.04.03
		Source: a
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: a
		Phenomena: {}
		di gramatik iz a bazundere tsore.
		di gramatik iz a bazunder-e tsore.
		DEF.NOM.F grammar be;3SG INDF separate-ACC.N trouble.

EB> Translation line?
EB> Your MRSs are broken for this example, presumably because there
is an unbounded RELS list somewhere (so relations have gone missing).
I don't see anything in the tdl for this copula that introduces
the _be_v_id_rel nor anything that constrains the list of the RELS list.
Remember: it's not enough that things parse.  You need to check the
MRSes, too :)

