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

We modeled this phenomenon in our grammar by choosing a separate question particle strategy, and setting the position as sentence-final. The form only allows one input, so we chose the more general particle spoken by all speakers: "he". In any case, "hwo" is simply another form of "he" (perhaps at the pragmatic level) and has no syntactic difference.

>> If you'd like to add it, you can create another lexical entry
by hand in lexicon.tdl that inherits from the same type.

To model the topic contrast, we created a new determiner called "def-pst". This determiner's only constraint is that the information-structure meaning is contrastive-topic. Note that we chose this name ("def-pst") to align with how it is most often referenced in gloss--we are not trying to make any claims about tense. The "pst" reference comes from a discourse-level constraint that its complement must have been previously mentioned. As for focus, we attempted to chose clause-initial as the position for focus and included no focus markers. Presumably due to the lack of any marking, this caused our grammar to overgenerate excessively--some sentences generating as many as nine readings.  

>> When you report problems like this, please include specific
examples for me to play with.  For now, I'm trying this one:

Source: b:330
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: info,det
hokšíla k'uŋ he hí
hokšíla k'uŋ he hí
hokšíla k'uŋ he hí
boy DEF.TOP.CONTR that come_here
'that aforementioned boy came'

... and it says it doesn't parse.  When I look at the testsuites in tsdb/home,
and pick the one with the latest date, only one example is even ambiguous,
and that one only has two parses...

So I think you mean that you tried putting that in, and it led to
overgeneration, so you took it back out.  Is that right?

--

Source: b:626
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: adj
wóyute wašté   uŋyútapi
wóyute wašté   uŋ-yútA-pi
wóyute wašté   yútA-1PlAgt
food   be_good eat-1PL.AGT
'We ate good food.'

>> For comparison, can you find examples of relative clauses
headed by other kids of verbs, especially transitive ones?
So something along the lines of "The person who ate the food
slept" or "The food the person ate was good"?

Adverbs in Lakota can appear either before or after the noun phrase.

>> 'The noun phrase' suggests only one per sentence.  Is
that right?  I think you want to describe the position of
adverbs relative to verbal projections, not relative to NPs.

Source: b:523
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: adv
huhú kiŋ taŋyéla yasmi
huhú kiŋ taŋyéla yasmi
huhú kiŋ taŋyéla yasmi-3SgAgt
bone DEF well gnaw_clean-3SG.AGT
'he gnawed the bones clean'

>> This is a resultative construction, and not relevant to the construction
types we are working with.  Can you find examples like "They put 
up the tent quickly"?

# 124/G simple manner adverb
Source: b:186
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: adv
ȟ'aŋhíya yápi
ȟ'aŋhíya yÁ-pi
ȟ'aŋhíya yÁ-3PlAgt
slowly  go_there-3PL.AGT
'they went slowly'

>> That's the kind of example I mean. But are both orders possible
here?  That is, can you get V-Adv as well as Adv-V?

Source: author, after c:71
Vetted: n
Judgment: g
Phenomena: emb-d
šuŋka kiŋ  aǧúyapi kiŋ yúte kiŋ slolwáye
šuŋka kiŋ  aǧúyapi kiŋ yútA kiŋ slol-wa-y´A
šuŋka kiŋ  aǧúyapi kiŋ yútA kiŋ slolyÁ-1SgAgt
dog DEF bread DEF eat DEF know-1SG.AGT
'I know that the dog ate the bread'

>> DEF seems like an inaccurate gloss for yútA here.


Non-verbal predicates do not exist in Lakota. Adjectives, for example, exist only as stative verbs. Nouns can also be used as verbs. The noun for "man," for example, is also used as the stative verb "to be an adult male."

This phenomenon does not require any changes to the grammar.

>> As in your sentences currently parse, even the ones with nouns used
as verbs?  I'd be surprised. Please be sure to include both kinds
in your testsuite.  (I only see the stative verbs.)  Also,
can you find any locatives (rough equivalent of PP predicates)?
What do they look like?

The first are the adjectives, which have properties much like stative verbs. More than likely these will be implemented as relative clauses. Our grammar does not support clauses or multiple verbs per sentence (except through coordination or auxiliaries), so these constructions do not parse. Furthermore, the appropriate verb types (nor lexical entries) exist in the lexicon, so the grammar fails to parse on that level as well.

>> In what way do these differ from other intransitive verbs?  What
do you need to do to add the verb type?

Finally, examples of embedded clauses were added to the testsuite. As mentioned above, the grammar does not yet support clauses, so the constructions in the test suite fail to parse. The relativized/complementizers are not all included in the grammar either, as there is overlap in function between them and determiners. As determiners, kiŋ and k'uŋ are in fact in the grammar, but we have not yet implemented their complementizing function.

>> When you implement them, it will be a question of adding separate
lexical entries (i.e., homophony) not generalizing the ones that you have.

We interpret this ambiguity as the difference between "I sat down and ate" and "I sat down and I ate." We believe this ambiguity should be expected. 

>> Agreed.  This is legit.

This constraint was not allowing the following sentences to read:

>> I think you mean "to parse".

to allow for the desired chaining. Unfortunately, doing so created the repercussion of allowing some enclitic sequencing that should not be allowed. We believe this can be addressed through additional analysis and refactoring of the FORM features on those auxiliary verbs.

>> Right.  Let me know if you have questions about this.

# 116/U matrix yes no + neg, not sentence final (Q must outscope IRR)
Source: author
Vetted: n
Judgment: u
Phenomena: q
waŋláke šni he?
waŋ-Ø-l-yáŋkA he šni?
waŋyáŋkA-3SgPat-1SgAgt he šni
see-3SG.PAT-1SG.AGT Q NEG
'did you not see him?'

>> "outscope" is a misnomer here.  Scope is a semantic concept, but
you're talking about order.


# 131/G embedded statement, čha as relativizer
Source: b:813
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: emb-d
wičíŋčala waŋ oȟ'áŋwašte čha slolwáye
wičíŋčala waŋ oȟ'áŋwašte čha slol-wa-yÁ
wičíŋčala waŋ oȟ'áŋwašte čha slolyÁ-1SgAgt
girl IDF be_kind REL know-1SG.AGT
'I know a girl who is kind'

>> This is a relative clause, which we won't be handling
under the rubric of embedded clauses.
