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

Although this choice makes the upper-side FST language less readable to
Lakota speakers, we feel this is a reasonable tradeoff, given that the
conversion of pre- and infixes to suffixes necessary in any case already
imposes a readability burden.

>> Yes, this is fine.

To implement these restrictions we added forbid constraints on the 1pers
and 2pers patientive lexical rule types to prohibit incompatible
agentive lexical rule types. This has the side effect, due to the
implementation of the suffixes, of making these verb forms invalid
tokens (and errors) rather than instead of merely resulting in no valid
parses.

>> I think that's fine, though it is an interesting comment on 
how the software reports its results. (Note that these will be 
counted as simply "not parsing" in the coverage/overgeneration stats
that [incr tsdb()] provides.)

We have also added 'plain verbs'. Plain verbs are similar to the
intransitive-stative verbs we previously analyzed, but can only
take inanimate subjects as overt NPs (no pronomial affixes are allowed):

>> How is this constraint implemented?  Are all of your
subject pronominal affixes in fact animate?

Aspect in Lakota is expressed via verbal enclitics. They are generally
analyzed and written as separate words, although some speakers treat
them as suffixes. Ingham (2003) identifies two aspectual
suffixes/enclitics: hAŋ (continuative) and what he refers to as 'recent
past', with the complex forms 'laka čhaŋ' or 'pilaka tkȟa'.

>> What do you mean by speakers treating them as suffixes?
Maybe authors treating them as suffixes?  Also, why is 'recent past'
an aspect?  That sounds like a tense-type concept.

Ingham's analysis would gloss 'í-{laka čhaŋ}' as arrive_there-PST.RECENT.
Cross-referencing with other materials, however, list čhaŋ as a
conjunction, meaning 'when....then', which would indicate a better gloss
for ílaka is arrive_there-INTENS 'exactly when he arrived there'. We
thus only analyzed continuative as an aspectual marker. Continuative is
also more commonly considered as a suffix than a separate word, and is
usually written connected to the verb with a hyphen. For example:

>> ok

As opposed to the sparse aspectual markers, Lakota has a rich assortment
of mood enclitics. We selected three of these to analyze and implement:
'ktA' irrealis, 'séčA' possible, and 'škȟÁ' quotative. The relative
ordering of the postverbal enclitics is fixed by implied position
classes, and some of the enclitics are mutually exclusive (séčA and
škȟÁ, for example).

>> I can see that irrealis and possible are likely values for a semantic
MOOD feature, but what is "quotative"?  Is it some sort of marker of
evidentiality?

  Source: a:157
  Vetted: f
  Judgment: g
  Phenomena: neg
  tuwé kiŋ waŋbláke šni
  tuwé kiŋ waŋ-bl-yáŋkA šni
  tuwé kiŋ waŋyáŋkA-1SgAgt šni
  be_who DEF see-1SgAgt NEG
  'I did not see who it was'

In this example tuwé 'be_who' is a nominalized verb acting as the object
of waŋyaŋkA 'to see smth'. We implemented sentential negation using the
auxiliary verb option in the customization system. This option provides
the neg-aux type which contributes a neg_rel semantic relation.  The
negative šni participates in the ordering restriction of enclitics
discussed above.

>> What do you mean by "nominalized"?  Do you have any examples
of negation that don't have nominalization in them?   

Although demonstratives can occur by themselves, their co-occurrence
with determiners make them better analyzed as adjectives, which are not
specifiable in the customization system. We therefore have not
implemented them so far.

>> I take it that NPs can occur without either demonstratives
or determiners?  (If not, then we need to revisit this analysis.)

