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

	All suffixes are going to be optional and the zero morpheme is going to
	be realized as -0 as far as Tense.	

>> Why are you adding -0 instead of just using a non-inflecting
lexical rule?  (Either one works, I'm just curious about the motivation.)

	Aspect is techniquely dealt with as a separate verb but can be expressed,
	both as separate words or a combined stem.  We only modeled the combined
	stem here and treated it as suffix.  Our grammar at the moment cannot 
	handle the separate words.  It is instead treated as the suffix closest
	to the verb since all inflection will be on the second verb.  There are 
	some things our grammar can't handle, like the perfect which can only be
	expressed as two separate words.

>> It should be possible to do the separate word case, too:

1) Define a lexical rule for the non-finite (combining) form of
the main verbs.  This will be in a position class that attaches
directly to the stem, and doesn't have any other position classes
that take it as input.

2) Define the aspect auxiliaries, and have them select non-finite
complements.

3) Let the other affixes take the auxiliaries as their input.

Let me know what questions you have about doing this.

	all aspect verbs are class2 and of course are not handled in this grammar

>> What does class2 mean?

	Mood is attached to the very end and can express the optative,
	intentional, negative sentential, prohibitive, imperative and
	realis.  The prohibitive and imperative have slightly
	different syntax in that the subject is not optional, it is
	actually prohibited.  Realis is overtly expressed and the
	irrealis is not.  This works since only one mood suffix is
	permitted

>> Is "negative sentential" really sentential negation, i.e., not
a mood but a negative morpheme that occupies the same position
class as the mood markers?

	Since negative intention is a separate mood, the intentional
	plus sentential negation is not grammatical, but of course our
	grammar cannot handle this:

>> "Cannot handle" meaning it overgenerates?  Why?  If you
just put the negative marker in the same position class as the
other moods, you should avoid parsing such examples.

	The nominal case is optional in all sentences and is seen in
	the grammar and there seemed to be no restrictions.  The
	accusative case might be optional but there is no mention of
	this in the grammar so we are going to play it safe and say
	that is prohibited.

>> I think you mean "nominative marked argument" when you
say "nominal case" and "accusative marked argument" when
you sayd "accusative case".  I would be a little surprised if
you don't ever get object drop.  Keep an eye out for such examples
as you are working with your materials.

	Sentential negation is a suffix added to the verb and is seen in the TAM
	section.  It can be -n or -t depending on if the next sound is 't' which
	isn't restricted and is not handled as of yet.

>> This is a morphophonological alternation that you can abstract
away from.  Just call it -n in the morpheme segemented line. (And
then target that line with your grammar rather than the surface one.)
Alternatively, when it comes to tdl editing, you can write rules
that change the -n to a -t if the following affix starts with a t,
though this will get a little fiddly.

However, 'kakabaa'/'kakadi'/'kakadjaan' is natural form as input so we left as it is.  Also, we do not have a syntactical way to distinguish -djaan (negative intentional) from  negation of intentional. We were not sure if the sentential negation of intentional form is really incorrect form in Ryukyuan, however we assumed that it is an incorrect form (for now) because it has -djaan (negative intentional) form separately. Similary, other suffixes/converbs which have negation feature already embedded in semantics such as -rna (prohibition) and -da (converve).

>> I need a little more info here.  What is the negative intentional?
What are some examples?

We implemented TENSE as obligatory. Therefore LKB will not parse sentences which has no TENSE suffix. In fact, it is easy fix these by adding 0 morpheme if we re-define our testsuite.txt.

>> Or you can add a lex rule to that position class that fills in whatever
TENSE information is appropriate in the absence of an overt morpheme
but has no affix associated.  Let me know if it's not clear how to do this.

There is another phenomena which we need to be addressed in the future. With similar reason, ungrammatical example (Example 45) "ba=ga tigami=u kaka-n-di" will be parsed if we add -0 (TENSE suffix) as "tigami=u kaka-0-n-di" which should not be parsed because there is negative intentional form -djaan in Irabu Ryukyuan.

	#Example 45 ungrammatical use of -di MOOD suffix with NEG (should use -djaan)
	Source: author
	Vetted: f
	Judgment: u
	Phenomena: tam
	ba=ga tigami=u kakandi
	ba=ga tigami=u kaka-n-di
	1SG=NOM letter=ACC write-NEG-INTENT
	I will not  write a letter.

>> Do NEG and INTENT in fact fill the same slot? In that case,
putting them in the same position class should rule this out.

This was something we noticed since LKB found other way of reading sentences. We have not implemented the syntax for Imperative MOOD yet. Instead, we only defined -ru/-0 suffix under MOOD for future customization. However due to these imperative suffixes, LKB analyze that following ungrammatical sentence "ba=ga tigami=u kaki-tar-u
" (Example 31) as grammatical sentence because it reads as "ba=ga tigami=u kaki-ta-ru". This introduce ambiguity in the sentence. 

>> It seems like you might want a forbids constraint between imperative
and the past tense marker.  



