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

The combination of these two lexical types results in slight
overgeneration, in that in some instances (as in example 121 above)
either the verb or sentence attachment is licensed.

EB> Technically, this is spurious ambiguity, not overgeneration (since
no extra strings are being accepted/generated).  Probably just ambiguity
to live with for now.

(125)
huhú kiŋ taŋyéla yasmí
huhú kiŋ taŋyéla yasmí
huhú kiŋ taŋyéla yasmí-3SgAgt
bone DEF well gnaw_clean-3SG.AGT
'he completely gnawed the bones clean'

EB> Looking at the semantics (and the derivation tree) you seem
to be treating this adverb at least as scopal. Why?  I'd think 
it is an intersective modifier.

(127)
wakhéya waŋ skayéla églepi
wakhéya waŋ skayéla égle-pi
wakhéya waŋ skayéla égle-3PlAgt.
tent    IDF whitely put_up_vertical-3PL.AGT
'they put up a white tent'

EB> I wanted to parse this example and admire the results, but
it doesn't parse :( ... I fooled around a bit and figure
out it was the spurious . at the end causing problems.
Please make sure that the IGT in your writes up parse.
(The ones you're using to illustrate working analyses, at least :)

EB> Looks good, but in this case, I'd give the adverb
an adjective-type PRED value: white_a_rel, since that's what
it's doing in the semantics.

EB> Also, you need to add [LOCAL intersective-mod] to the MOD
value of intersective-mod-comp-lex, to keep these out of the
scopal-mod rules.

A third kind of adverb is the scopal adverbs, such as adverbs of location. For example:

(not in testsuite yet)
ȟé       kiŋ itókaǧataŋhaŋ makȟóčhe yaŋká
mountain DEF south_of      country  sit
'to the south of the mountains lies the country'

In these forms, the adverb heads a phrase which then modifies the
verb. In this example, itókaǧataŋhaŋ takes 'ȟé kiŋ' as a complement and
modifies yaŋká.

EB> Why do you believe these are scopal?

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

Although this implementation parses, the MRS doesn't appear to connect
the _mountain_n_rel to the situation at all. As this was purely
investigational work at this point, we didn't pursue further resolution
of this anomaly.

EB> You didn't give me the example in the form the grammar
expects, so I couldn't try it directly.  However, I can
see the problem:  You have to link the LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX
of the COMPS to the relevant ARG position in the keyrel.
In fact, I'd say these look more like postpositions than adverbs,
so the instructions on adpositions will probably be helpful.

As the determiner is by default optional in Lakota, the modifier specifier
OPT was constrained to - to prevent dropping when the demonstrative
appears before the noun phrase.

EB> Very nice :)

The only problem that we are seeing with this implementation is that we are
overgenerating, allowing the demonstrative to appear between the noun
and its determiner (described below).

EB> If it's attaching to something that's SPR non-empty, that's where
it would be expected to appear! 

We noted that the Matrix assumes that dropped subjects are always
[ COG-ST in-foc ]. This is not the case for Lakota; affixes are not
markers for arg-drop but can serve as overt subject/object themselves.

EB> I don't follow here.  How does the fact that the affixes
are required when there is not any independent NP in that role
relate to the COG-ST of arguments realized in that fashion?

In order to implement the cognitive status correctly, we modified the
lexical rules for the affixes. For example,

  tra-subj-agt-lex-rule := infl-lex-rule & tra-agt-subj-pos-lex-rule-super &
    [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST [ OPT +,
                                        LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX [ COG-ST activ-or-more,
                                                                SPECI + ] ] ].

sets [ COG-ST activ-or more ] and [ SPECI + ] for transitive agentive
subject affixes in the absence of an overt subject. Similar rule
adjustments were made for the other affix classes.

EB> What is your evidence that they should be activ-or-more,
rather than in-foc?

The orderings of AUX-verb enclitics now works as expected.

EB> Nice :)

Our one negative example that parses is #82:

igmú hé kiŋ khuwá-1SgAgt

The challenge here is that head-adj-int allows the demonstrative hé to
attach to the noun igmú inside the determiner kiŋ. We have as yet been
unable to constrain this from occurring.

EB> So the possible orders are:

Demonstrative N Det
Demonstrative N
N Det Demonstrative

?

EB> Attaching adjectives outside determiners leads to broken semantics.  Given that
the post-NP demonstratives require an overt determiner, I wonder if it might
not be better to treat them as syntactic modifiers of the determiner, which
semantically reach inside the determiner's SPEC value to grab the INDEX and
LTOP of the N' (and identify them with their LBL and ARG1, respectively).  
This is akin to your "white-ly" type adverbs, but actually better because
in this case the handle that we want is accessible.

The other three overgenerations are unproblematic:

EB> "overgeneration" != (spurious) ambiguity.  Overgeneration is licensing
strings you don't want to license.

- one results from ambiguity whether bare-np applies before or after
  head-adj-int

EB> You can fix this one by insisting on [ SPR cons ] inside the MOD
value of the adjective.


